BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE 10-Q 2011 Q3 Quarterly report

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)
þ	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
OR
o	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
	FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM          TO

Commission file number:33-03094

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Connecticut (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	06-0566090 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
1300 Hall Boulevard, Bloomfield, Connecticut (Address of principal executive offices)	06002 (Zip Code)

(860) 656-3000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 ofRegulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes þ     No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” inRule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer o	Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer þ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined inRule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes o     No þ

At November 10, 2011, 34,595,317 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $2.50 par value per share, were outstanding, of which 30,000,000 shares were owned directly by MetLife, Inc. and the remaining 4,595,317 shares were owned by MetLife Investors Group, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.

REDUCED DISCLOSURE FORMAT

The registrant meets the conditions set forth in General Instruction H(1)(a) and (b) ofForm 10-Q and is, therefore, filing thisForm 10-Q with the reduced disclosure format.

Table of Contents

	Page
Part I — Financial Information
Item 1. Financial Statements(at September 30, 2011 (Unaudited) and December 31, 2010 and for the Three Months and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 (Unaudited))		5
Interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets		5
Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations		6
Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity		7
Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows		9
Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements		10
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		98
Item 4. Controls and Procedures		105
Part II — Other Information		105
Item 1. Legal Proceedings		105
Item 1A. Risk Factors		106
Item 6. Exhibits		118
Signatures		119
Exhibit Index		E-1
EX-31.1
EX-31.2
EX-32.1
EX-32.2
EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

2

As used in thisForm 10-Q, “MICC,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, a Connecticut corporation incorporated in 1863, and its subsidiaries, including MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company (“MLI-USA”). MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”).

Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, may contain or incorporate by reference information that includes or is based upon forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe” and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with a discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, prospective services or products, future performance or results of current and anticipated services or products, sales efforts, expenses, the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings, trends in operations and financial results.

Any or all forward-looking statements may turn out to be wrong. They can be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known or unknown risks and uncertainties. Many such factors will be important in determining the actual future results of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries. These statements are based on current expectations and the current economic environment. They involve a number of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. These statements are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Risks, uncertainties, and other factors that might cause such differences include the risks, uncertainties and other factors identified in MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). These factors include: (1) difficult conditions in the global capital markets; (2) concerns over U.S. fiscal policy and the trajectory of the national debt of the U.S., as well as rating agency downgrades of U.S. Treasury securities; (3) increased volatility and disruption of the capital and credit markets, which may affect our ability to seek financing or access our credit facilities; (4) uncertainty about the effectiveness of the U.S. government’s programs to stabilize the financial system, the imposition of fees relating thereto, or the promulgation of additional regulations; (5) impact of comprehensive financial services regulation reform on us; (6) exposure to financial and capital market risk; (7) changes in general economic conditions, including the performance of financial markets and interest rates, which may affect our ability to raise capital, generate fee income and market-related revenue and finance statutory reserve requirements and may require us to pledge collateral or make payments related to declines in value of specified assets; (8) potential liquidity and other risks resulting from our participation in a securities lending program and other transactions; (9) investment losses and defaults, and changes to investment valuations; (10) impairments of goodwill and realized losses or market value impairments to illiquid assets; (11) defaults on our mortgage loans; (12) the impairment of other financial institutions that could adversely affect our investments or business; (13) our ability to address unforeseen liabilities, asset impairments, loss of key contractual relationships, or rating actions arising from acquisitions or dispositions and to successfully integrate and manage the growth of acquired businesses with minimal disruption; (14) economic, political, currency and other risks relating to our international operations, including with respect to fluctuations of exchange rates; (15) downgrades in our claims paying ability, financial strength or credit ratings; (16) ineffectiveness of risk management policies and procedures; (17) availability and effectiveness of reinsurance or indemnification arrangements, as well as default or failure of counterparties to perform; (18) discrepancies between actual claims experience and assumptions used in setting prices for our products and establishing the liabilities for our obligations for future policy benefits and claims; (19) catastrophe losses; (20) heightened competition, including with respect to pricing, entry of new competitors, consolidation of distributors, the development of new products by new and existing competitors, distribution of amounts available under U.S. government programs, and for personnel; (21) unanticipated changes in industry trends; (22) changes in accounting standards, practicesand/or policies; (23) changes in assumptions related to deferred policy acquisition costs, deferred sales inducements, value of business acquired or goodwill; (24) exposure to losses related to variable annuity guarantee benefits, including from significant and sustained downturns or extreme

3

volatility in equity markets, reduced interest rates, unanticipated policyholder behavior, mortality or longevity, and the adjustment for nonperformance risk; (25) adverse results or other consequences from litigation, arbitration or regulatory investigations; (26) inability to protect our intellectual property rights or claims of infringement of the intellectual property rights of others; (27) discrepancies between actual experience and assumptions used in establishing liabilities related to other contingencies or obligations; (28) regulatory, legislative or tax changes that may affect the cost of, or demand for, our products or services, impair the ability of MetLife and its affiliates to attract and retain talented and experienced management and other employees, or increase the cost or administrative burdens of providing benefits to the employees who conduct our business; (29) the effects of business disruption or economic contraction due to disasters such as terrorist attacks, cyberattacks, other hostilities, or natural catastrophes, including any related impact on our disaster recovery systems, cyber-or other information security systems and management continuity planning; (30) the effectiveness of our programs and practices in avoiding giving our associates incentives to take excessive risks; and (31) other risks and uncertainties described from time to time in MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s filings with the SEC.

We do not undertake any obligation to publicly correct or update any forward-looking statement if we later become aware that such statement is not likely to be achieved. Please consult any further disclosures MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut makes on related subjects in reports to the SEC.

Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts

In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q, please remember that they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, its subsidiaries or the other parties to the agreements. The agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and:

•  should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate;

•  have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement;

•  may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to investors; and

•  were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments.

Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. Additional information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries may be found elsewhere in this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q and MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s other public filings, which are available without charge through the SEC website at www.sec.gov.

4

Part I — Financial Information

Item 1.   Financial Statements

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
September 30, 2011 (Unaudited) and December 31, 2010

(In millions, except share and per share data)

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
Assets
Investments:
Fixed maturity securitiesavailable-for-sale, at estimated fair value (amortized cost: $44,739 and $44,132, respectively)	$	48,082	$	44,924
Equity securitiesavailable-for-sale, at estimated fair value (cost: $274 and $427, respectively)		252		405
Other securities, at estimated fair value		3,157		2,247
Mortgage loans (net of valuation allowances of $61 and $87, respectively; includes $3,227 and $6,840, respectively, at estimated fair value, relating to variable interest entities)		9,532		12,730
Policy loans		1,193		1,190
Real estate and real estate joint ventures		528		501
Other limited partnership interests		1,681		1,538
Short-term investments, principally at estimated fair value		3,000		1,235
Other invested assets, principally at estimated fair value		3,151		1,716
Total investments		70,576		66,486
Cash and cash equivalents, principally at estimated fair value		964		1,928
Accrued investment income (includes $15 and $31, respectively, relating to variable interest entities)		596		559
Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables		19,702		17,008
Deferred policy acquisition costs and value of business acquired		4,784		5,099
Current income tax recoverable		245		38
Deferred income tax assets		—		356
Goodwill		953		953
Other assets		878		839
Separate account assets		65,073		61,619
Total assets	$	163,771	$	154,885
Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Liabilities
Future policy benefits	$	24,704	$	23,198
Policyholder account balances		42,167		39,291
Other policy-related balances		2,851		2,652
Payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions		8,466		8,103
Long-term debt (includes $3,158 and $6,773, respectively, at estimated fair value, relating to variable interest entities)		3,950		7,568
Deferred income tax liability		1,077		—
Other liabilities (includes $15 and $31, respectively, relating to variable interest entities)		5,091		4,503
Separate account liabilities		65,073		61,619
Total liabilities		153,379		146,934
Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees (Note 5)
Stockholders’ Equity
Common stock, par value $2.50 per share; 40,000,000 shares authorized; 34,595,317 shares issued and outstanding at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010		86		86
Additional paid-in capital		6,673		6,719
Retained earnings		1,855		934
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		1,778		212
Total stockholders’ equity		10,392		7,951
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	163,771	$	154,885

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
For the Three Months and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 (Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Three Months						Nine Months
	Ended						Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
Revenues
Premiums	$	484		$	175		$	1,261		$	886
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees		487			402			1,435			1,178
Net investment income		651			823			2,235			2,338
Other revenues		123			113			384			326
Net investment gains (losses):
Other-than-temporary impairments on fixed maturity securities		(5	)		(24	)		(35	)		(77	)
Other-than-temporary impairments on fixed maturity securities transferred to other comprehensive income (loss)		(9	)		13			(5	)		36
Other net investment gains (losses)		72			20			57			137
Total net investment gains (losses)		58			9			17			96
Net derivative gains (losses)		882			37			859			292
Total revenues		2,685			1,559			6,191			5,116
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims		737			384			1,882			1,582
Interest credited to policyholder account balances		162			340			753			913
Other expenses		990			599			2,223			1,857
Total expenses		1,889			1,323			4,858			4,352
Income (loss) before provision for income tax		796			236			1,333			764
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)		251			91			412			245
Net income	$	545		$	145		$	921		$	519

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

6

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011 (Unaudited)

(In millions)

								Accumulated Other
								Comprehensive Income (Loss)
								Net					Foreign
			Additional					Unrealized		Other-Than-			Currency
	Common		Paid-in			Retained		Investment		Temporary			Translation			Total
	Stock		Capital			Earnings		Gains (Losses)		Impairments			Adjustments			Equity
Balance at December 31, 2010	$	86	$	6,719		$	934	$	388	$	(51	)	$	(125	)	$	7,951
Capital contribution				1													1
Return of capital (Note 6)				(47	)												(47	)
Comprehensive income (loss):
Net income							921										921
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivative instruments, net of income tax									226								226
Unrealized investment gains (losses), net of related offsets and income tax									1,355		(17	)					1,338
Foreign currency translation adjustments, net of income tax														2			2
Other comprehensive income (loss)																	1,566
Comprehensive income (loss)																	2,487
Balance at September 30, 2011	$	86	$	6,673		$	1,855	$	1,969	$	(68	)	$	(123	)	$	10,392

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

7

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity — (Continued)
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010 (Unaudited)

(In millions)

								Accumulated Other
								Comprehensive Income (Loss)
								Net						Foreign
			Additional					Unrealized			Other-Than-			Currency
	Common		Paid-in		Retained			Investment			Temporary			Translation			Total
	Stock		Capital		Earnings			Gains (Losses)			Impairments			Adjustments			Equity
Balance at December 31, 2009	$	86	$	6,719	$	541		$	(593	)	$	(83	)	$	(109	)	$	6,561
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of income tax		—		—		(34	)		23			11			—			—
Balance at January 1, 2010		86		6,719		507			(570	)		(72	)		(109	)		6,561
Comprehensive income (loss):
Net income						519												519
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Unrealized gains (losses) on derivative instruments, net of income tax									33									33
Unrealized investment gains (losses), net of related offsets and income tax									1,790			46						1,836
Foreign currency translation adjustments, net of income tax															(24	)		(24	)
Other comprehensive income (loss)																		1,845
Comprehensive income (loss)																		2,364
Balance at September 30, 2010	$	86	$	6,719	$	1,026		$	1,253		$	(26	)	$	(133	)	$	8,925

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

8

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Interim Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 (Unaudited)

(In millions)

	Nine Months
	Ended
	September 30,
	2011			2010
Net cash provided by operating activities	$	554		$	401
Cash flows from investing activities
Sales, maturities and repayments of:
Fixed maturity securities		13,497			12,047
Equity securities		148			114
Mortgage loans		793			611
Real estate and real estate joint ventures		22			18
Other limited partnership interests		194			68
Purchases of:
Fixed maturity securities		(13,970	)		(13,399	)
Equity securities		(7	)		(39	)
Mortgage loans		(844	)		(979	)
Real estate and real estate joint ventures		(66	)		(77	)
Other limited partnership interests		(264	)		(257	)
Cash received in connection with freestanding derivatives		376			76
Cash paid in connection with freestanding derivatives		(371	)		(146	)
Net change in policy loans		(3	)		(1	)
Net change in short-term investments		(1,769	)		312
Net change in other invested assets		(542	)		(60	)
Other, net		1			—
Net cash used in investing activities		(2,805	)		(1,712	)
Cash flows from financing activities
Policyholder account balances:
Deposits		15,211			20,528
Withdrawals		(13,982	)		(19,239	)
Net change in payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions		363			915
Long-term debt repaid		(342	)		(439	)
Return of capital		(47	)		—
Financing element on certain derivative instruments		81			(19	)
Net cash provided by financing activities		1,284			1,746
Effect of change in foreign currency exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents balances		3			(12	)
Change in cash and cash equivalents		(964	)		423
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		1,928			2,574
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	964		$	2,997
Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information:
Net cash paid during the period for:
Interest	$	329		$	348
Income tax	$	21		$	89

See accompanying notes to the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

9

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)

1.   Business, Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Business

“MICC” or the “Company” refers to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, a Connecticut corporation incorporated in 1863, and its subsidiaries, including MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company (“MLI-USA”). MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”). The Company offers individual annuities, individual life insurance, and institutional protection and asset accumulation products.

Basis of Presentation

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to adopt accounting policies and make estimates and assumptions that affect amounts reported in the interim condensed consolidated financial statements.

In applying the Company’s accounting policies, management makes subjective and complex judgments that frequently require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain. Many of these policies, estimates and related judgments are common in the insurance and financial services industries; others are specific to the Company’s businesses and operations. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries, as well as partnerships and joint ventures in which the Company has control, and variable interest entities (“VIEs”) for which the Company is the primary beneficiary. Intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

The Company uses the equity method of accounting for investments in equity securities in which it has a significant influence or more than a 20% interest and for real estate joint ventures and other limited partnership interests in which it has more than a minor equity interest or more than a minor influence over the joint venture’s or partnership’s operations, but does not have a controlling interest and is not the primary beneficiary. The Company uses the cost method of accounting for investments in real estate joint ventures and other limited partnership interests in which it has a minor equity investment and virtually no influence over the joint venture’s or the partnership’s operations.

Certain amounts in the prior year periods’ interim condensed consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform with the 2011 presentation. See Note 8 for reclassifications related to operating revenues and expenses that affected results of operations on both a segment and a consolidated basis.

Since the Company is a member of a controlled group of affiliated companies, its results may not be indicative of those of a stand-alone entity.

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (including normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly the consolidated financial position of the Company at September 30, 2011, its consolidated results of operations for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, its consolidated statements of stockholders’ equity for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, and its consolidated statements of cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, in conformity with GAAP. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of full year performance. The December 31, 2010 consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited consolidated financial statements included in MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “2010 Annual Report”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which include all disclosures required by GAAP. Therefore, these interim condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of the Company included in the 2010 Annual Report.

10

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

Effective January 1, 2011, the Company adopted new guidance that addresses when a business combination should be assumed to have occurred for the purpose of providing pro forma disclosure. Under the new guidance, if an entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period. The guidance also expands the supplemental pro forma disclosures to include additional narratives. The adoption did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Effective January 1, 2011, the Company adopted new guidance regarding goodwill impairment testing. This guidance modifies Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity would be required to perform Step 2 of the test if qualitative factors indicate that it is more likely than not that goodwill impairment exists. The adoption did not have an impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Effective January 1, 2011, the Company adopted new guidance regarding accounting for investment funds determined to be VIEs. Under this guidance, an insurance entity would not be required to consolidate a voting-interest investment fund when it holds the majority of the voting interests of the fund through its separate accounts. In addition, an insurance entity would not consider the interests held through separate accounts for the benefit of policyholders in the insurer’s evaluation of its economic interest in a VIE, unless the separate account contractholder is a related party. The adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Effective July 1, 2011, the Company adopted new guidance regarding accounting for troubled debt restructurings. This guidance clarifies whether a creditor has granted a concession and whether a debtor is experiencing financial difficulties for the purpose of determining when a restructuring constitutes a troubled debt restructuring. Additionally, the guidance prohibits creditors from using the borrower’s effective rate test to evaluate whether a concession has been granted to the borrower. The adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. See also expanded disclosures in Note 2.

Future Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

In September 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued new guidance on goodwill impairment testing (Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”)2011-08,Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Testing GoodwillforImpairment), effective for calendar years beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is permitted. The objective of this standard is to simplify how an entity tests goodwill for impairment. The amendments in this standard will allow an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying value as a basis for determining whether it needs to perform the quantitative two-step goodwill impairment test. Only if an entity determines, based on qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that a reporting unit’s fair value is less than its carrying value will it be required to calculate the fair value of the reporting unit. The Company intends to adopt this new guidance beginning in fiscal year 2012 and is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued new guidance regarding comprehensive income (ASU2011-05,Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income), effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. The guidance should be applied retrospectively and early adoption is permitted. The new guidance provides companies with the option to present the total of comprehensive income, components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. The objective of the standard is to increase the prominence of items reported in other

11

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

comprehensive income and to facilitate convergence of GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). The standard eliminates the option to present components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In May 2011, the FASB issued new guidance regarding fair value measurements (ASU 2011- 04,Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs), effective for the first interim or annual period beginning after December 15, 2011. The guidance should be applied prospectively. The amendments in this ASU are intended to establish common requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements in accordance with GAAP and IFRS. Some of the amendments clarify the FASB’s intent on the application of existing fair value measurement requirements. Other amendments change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In April 2011, the FASB issued new guidance regarding effective control in repurchase agreements (ASU2011-03,Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860): Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements), effective for the first interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. The guidance should be applied prospectively to transactions or modifications of existing transactions that occur on or after the effective date. The amendments in this ASU remove from the assessment of effective control the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In October 2010, the FASB issued new guidance regarding accounting for deferred acquisition costs (ASU2010-26,Financial Services — Insurance (Topic 944): Accounting for Costs Associated with Acquiring or Renewing Insurance Contracts) (“ASU2010-26”), effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2011. ASU2010-26 specifies that only costs related directly to successful acquisition of new or renewal contracts can be capitalized as deferred acquisition costs (“DAC”); all other acquisition-related costs must be expensed as incurred. Under the new guidance advertising costs may only be included in DAC if the capitalization criteria in the direct-response advertising guidance in Subtopic340-20,Other Assets and Deferred Costs — Capitalized Advertising Costs, are met. As a result, certain direct marketing, sales manager compensation and administrative costs currently capitalized by the Company will no longer be deferred. The Company plans to apply ASU2010-26 retrospectively to all prior periods presented in its consolidated financial statements for all insurance contracts. The Company expects that the effect upon adoption of ASU2010-26 will be a reduction in DAC with a corresponding reduction to equity, on an after tax basis. In addition, the Company expects a reduction in prior period earnings as a result of applying the new guidance retrospectively. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

12

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

2.   Investments

Fixed Maturity and Equity SecuritiesAvailable-for-Sale

The following tables present the cost or amortized cost, gross unrealized gains and losses, estimated fair value of the Company’s fixed maturity and equity securities and the percentage that each sector represents by the respective total holdings for the periods shown. The unrealized loss amounts presented below include the noncredit loss component ofother-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) losses:

	September 30, 2011
	Cost or		Gross Unrealized						Estimated
	Amortized				Temporary		OTTI		Fair		% of
	Cost		Gains		Losses		Losses		Value		Total
	(In millions)
Fixed Maturity Securities:
U.S. corporate securities	$	16,139	$	1,471	$	231	$	—	$	17,379		36.1	%
U.S. Treasury and agency securities		7,410		1,167		3		—		8,574		17.8
Foreign corporate securities		7,665		586		116		—		8,135		16.9
Residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”)		6,425		348		128		102		6,543		13.6
Commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”)		2,157		96		19		—		2,234		4.7
State and political subdivision securities		1,906		224		62		—		2,068		4.3
Asset-backed securities (“ABS”)		2,072		47		88		14		2,017		4.2
Foreign government securities		965		170		3		—		1,132		2.4
Total fixed maturity securities (1), (2)	$	44,739	$	4,109	$	650	$	116	$	48,082		100.0	%
Equity Securities:
Non-redeemable preferred stock (1)	$	148	$	5	$	27	$	—	$	126		50.0	%
Common stock		126		9		9		—		126		50.0
Total equity securities	$	274	$	14	$	36	$	—	$	252		100.0	%

13

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	December 31, 2010
	Cost or		Gross Unrealized						Estimated
	Amortized				Temporary		OTTI		Fair		% of
	Cost		Gains		Losses		Losses		Value		Total
	(In millions)
Fixed Maturity Securities:
U.S. corporate securities	$	14,860	$	816	$	302	$	—	$	15,374		34.2	%
U.S. Treasury and agency securities		7,665		143		132		—		7,676		17.1
Foreign corporate securities		8,095		502		127		—		8,470		18.8
RMBS		6,803		203		218		79		6,709		14.9
CMBS		2,203		113		39		—		2,277		5.1
State and political subdivision securities		1,755		22		131		—		1,646		3.7
ABS		1,927		44		95		7		1,869		4.2
Foreign government securities		824		81		2		—		903		2.0
Total fixed maturity securities (1), (2)	$	44,132	$	1,924	$	1,046	$	86	$	44,924		100.0	%
Equity Securities:
Non-redeemable preferred stock (1)	$	306	$	9	$	47	$	—	$	268		66.2	%
Common stock		121		17		1		—		137		33.8
Total equity securities	$	427	$	26	$	48	$	—	$	405		100.0	%

(1) Upon acquisition, the Company classifies perpetual securities that have attributes of both debt and equity as fixed maturity securities if the security has an interest ratestep-up feature which, when combined with other qualitative factors, indicates that the security has more debt-like characteristics; while those with more equity-like characteristics are classified as equity securities within non-redeemable preferred stock. Many of such securities have been issued bynon-U.S. financial institutions that are accorded Tier 1 and Upper Tier 2 capital treatment by their respective regulatory bodies and are commonly referred to as “perpetual hybrid securities.” The following table presents the perpetual hybrid securities held by the Company at:

			September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
			Estimated		Estimated
Classification			Fair		Fair
Consolidated Balance Sheets	Sector Table	Primary Issuers	Value		Value
			(In millions)
Fixed maturity securities	Foreign corporate securities	Non-U.S. financial institutions	$	147	$	450
Fixed maturity securities	U.S. corporate securities	U.S. financial institutions	$	10	$	10
Equity securities	Non-redeemable preferred stock	Non-U.S. financial institutions	$	56	$	202
Equity securities	Non-redeemable preferred stock	U.S. financial institutions	$	53	$	35

(2) The Company’s holdings in redeemable preferred stock with stated maturity dates, commonly referred to as “capital securities,” were primarily issued by U.S. financial institutions and have cumulative interest deferral features. The Company held $489 million and $645 million at estimated fair value of such securities at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, which are included in the U.S. and foreign corporate securities sectors within fixed maturity securities.

14

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The below investment grade and non-income producing amounts presented below are based on rating agency designations and equivalent designations of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”), with the exception of certain structured securities described below held by MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its domestic insurance subsidiary. Non-agency RMBS, CMBS and ABS held by these companies, are presented based on ratings from the revised NAIC rating methodologies for structured securities (which may not correspond to rating agency designations). Currently, the NAIC evaluates structured securities held by insurers using the revised NAIC rating methodologies on an annual basis. If such companies acquire structured securities that have not been previously evaluated by the NAIC, but are expected to be evaluated by the NAIC in the upcoming annual review, an internally developed rating is used for interim reporting. All NAIC designation (e.g., NAIC 1 — 6) amounts and percentages presented herein are based on the revised NAIC methodologies. All rating agency designation (e.g., Aaa/AAA) amounts and percentages presented herein are based on rating agency designations without adjustment for the revised NAIC methodologies described above. Rating agency designations are based on availability of applicable ratings from rating agencies on the NAIC acceptable rating organization list, including Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”), Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”) and Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”).

The following table presents selected information about certain fixed maturity securities held by the Company at:

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Below investment grade or non-rated fixed maturity securities:
Estimated fair value	$	3,659		$	4,027
Net unrealized gains (losses)	$	(201	)	$	(125	)
Non-income producing fixed maturity securities:
Estimated fair value	$	5		$	36
Net unrealized gains (losses)	$	(1	)	$	2

Concentrations of Credit Risk (Fixed Maturity Securities) — Summary.  The following section contains a summary of the concentrations of credit risk related to fixed maturity securities holdings.

The Company was not exposed to any concentrations of credit risk of any single issuer greater than 10% of the Company’s stockholders’ equity, other than the government and agency securities summarized in the table below.

Concentrations of Credit Risk (Government and Agency Securities).  The following section contains a summary of the concentrations of credit risk related to government and agency fixed maturity and fixed-income securities holdings which were greater than 10% of the Company’s equity at:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	Carrying Value (1)
	(In millions)
U.S. Treasury and agency fixed maturity securities	$	8,574	$	7,676
U.S. Treasury and agency fixed-income securities included in:
Short-term investments	$	2,762	$	935
Cash equivalents	$	353	$	1,287

(1) Represents estimated fair value for fixed maturity securities; amortized cost, which approximates estimated fair value or estimated fair value, if available, for short-term investments; and amortized cost, which approximates estimated fair value, for cash equivalents.

Concentrations of Credit Risk (Fixed Maturity Securities) — U.S. and Foreign Corporate Securities.  The Company maintains a diversified portfolio of corporate fixed maturity securities across industries and issuers. This

15

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

portfolio does not have an exposure to any single issuer in excess of 1% of total investments. The tables below present information for U.S. and foreign corporate securities at:

	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Estimated					Estimated
	Fair		% of			Fair		% of
	Value		Total			Value		Total
	(In millions)					(In millions)
Corporate fixed maturity securities — by sector:
Foreign corporate fixed maturity securities (1)	$	8,135		31.9	%	$	8,470		35.5	%
U.S. corporate fixed maturity securities — by industry:
Consumer		4,383		17.2			3,893		16.3
Industrial		3,841		15.0			3,282		13.7
Utility		3,435		13.5			3,379		14.2
Finance		3,111		12.2			2,569		10.8
Communications		1,706		6.7			1,444		6.1
Other		903		3.5			807		3.4
Total	$	25,514		100.0	%	$	23,844		100.0	%

(1) Includes U.S. dollar-denominated debt obligations of foreign obligors and other foreign fixed maturity securities.

	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Estimated					Estimated
	Fair		% of Total			Fair		% of Total
	Value		Investments			Value		Investments
	(In millions)					(In millions)
Concentrations within corporate fixed maturity securities:
Largest exposure to a single issuer	$	267		0.4	%	$	252		0.4	%
Holdings in ten issuers with the largest exposures	$	1,711		2.4	%	$	1,683		2.5	%

16

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Concentrations of Credit Risk (Fixed Maturity Securities) — RMBS.  The table below presents information on the Company’s RMBS holdings at:

	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Estimated					Estimated
	Fair		% of			Fair		% of
	Value		Total			Value		Total
	(In millions)					(In millions)
By security type:
Collateralized mortgage obligations	$	3,389		51.8	%	$	3,243		48.3	%
Pass-through securities		3,154		48.2			3,466		51.7
Total RMBS	$	6,543		100.0	%	$	6,709		100.0	%
By risk profile:
Agency	$	4,765		72.8	%	$	5,080		75.7	%
Prime		1,076		16.5			1,023		15.3
Alternative residential mortgage loans		702		10.7			606		9.0
Total RMBS	$	6,543		100.0	%	$	6,709		100.0	%
Rated Aaa/AAA	$	4,815		73.6	%	$	5,254		78.3	%
Rated NAIC 1	$	5,494		84.0	%	$	5,618		83.7	%

See Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2010 Annual Report for a description of the security types and risk profile.

The following tables present information on the Company’s investment in alternative residential mortgage loans (“Alt-A”) RMBS at:

	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Estimated					Estimated
	Fair		% of			Fair		% of
	Value		Total			Value		Total
	(In millions)					(In millions)
Vintage Year:
2005 & Prior	$	348		49.6	%	$	311		51.3	%
2006		175		24.9			88		14.6
2007		179		25.5			207		34.1
2008 to 2011		—		—			—		—
Total	$	702		100.0	%	$	606		100.0	%

17

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
				% of						% of
	Amount			Total			Amount			Total
	(In millions)						(In millions)
Net unrealized gains (losses)	$	(155	)				$	(141	)
Rated Aa/AA or better					0.5	%					1.5	%
Rated NAIC 1					29.8	%					14.9	%
Distribution of holdings — at estimated fair value — by collateral type:
Fixed rate mortgage loans collateral					97.4	%					96.1	%
Hybrid adjustable rate mortgage loans collateral					2.6						3.9
Total Alt-A RMBS					100.0	%					100.0	%

Concentrations of Credit Risk (Fixed Maturity Securities) — CMBS.  The following tables present information about CMBS held by the Company at:

	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Estimated					Estimated
	Fair		% of			Fair		% of
	Value		Total			Value		Total
	(In millions)					(In millions)
Vintage Year:
2003 & Prior	$	717		32.1	%	$	947		41.6	%
2004		427		19.1			442		19.4
2005		452		20.2			431		18.9
2006		515		23.1			442		19.4
2007		39		1.7			15		0.7
2008 to 2011		84		3.8			—		—
Total	$	2,234		100.0	%	$	2,277		100.0	%

	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
			% of					% of
	Amount		Total			Amount		Total
	(In millions)					(In millions)
Net unrealized gains (losses)	$	77				$	74
Rated Aaa/AAA				89	%				88	%
Rated NAIC 1				96	%				95	%

The tables above reflect rating agency designations assigned by nationally recognized rating agencies including Moody’s, S&P, Fitch and Realpoint, LLC.

18

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Concentrations of Credit Risk (Fixed Maturity Securities) — ABS.  The Company’s ABS are diversified both by collateral type and by issuer. The following table presents information about ABS held by the Company at:

	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Estimated					Estimated
	Fair		% of			Fair		% of
	Value		Total			Value		Total
	(In millions)					(In millions)
By collateral type:
Credit card loans	$	483		23.9	%	$	753		40.3	%
Collateralized debt obligations		364		18.1			254		13.5
Automobile loans		222		11.0			98		5.3
RMBS backed bysub-prime mortgage loans		211		10.5			247		13.2
Student loans		184		9.1			174		9.3
Utility loans		171		8.5			157		8.4
Other loans		382		18.9			186		10.0
Total	$	2,017		100.0	%	$	1,869		100.0	%
Rated Aaa/AAA	$	1,266		62.8	%	$	1,251		66.9	%
Rated NAIC 1	$	1,879		93.2	%	$	1,699		90.9	%

Concentrations of Credit Risk (Equity Securities).  The Company was not exposed to any concentrations of credit risk in its equity securities holdings of any single issuer greater than 10% of the Company’s stockholders’ equity or 1% of total investments at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

Maturities of Fixed Maturity Securities.  The amortized cost and estimated fair value of fixed maturity securities, by contractual maturity date (excluding scheduled sinking funds), were as follows at:

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
			Estimated				Estimated
	Amortized		Fair		Amortized		Fair
	Cost		Value		Cost		Value
			(In millions)
Due in one year or less	$	2,369	$	2,384	$	1,874	$	1,889
Due after one year through five years		9,917		10,288		9,340		9,672
Due after five years through ten years		7,723		8,319		7,829		8,333
Due after ten years		14,076		16,297		14,156		14,175
Subtotal		34,085		37,288		33,199		34,069
RMBS, CMBS and ABS		10,654		10,794		10,933		10,855
Total fixed maturity securities	$	44,739	$	48,082	$	44,132	$	44,924

Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities due to the exercise of call or prepayment options. Fixed maturity securities not due at a single maturity date have been included in the above table in the year of final contractual maturity. RMBS, CMBS and ABS are shown separately in the table, as they are not due at a single maturity.

EvaluatingAvailable-for-Sale Securities forOther-Than-Temporary Impairment

As described more fully in Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2010 Annual Report, the Company performs a regular evaluation, on asecurity-by-security basis, of itsavailable-for-sale securities holdings, including fixed maturity securities, equity securities and perpetual hybrid securities, in

19

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

accordance with its impairment policy in order to evaluate whether such investments areother-than-temporarily impaired.

Net Unrealized Investment Gains (Losses)

The components of net unrealized investment gains (losses), included in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), were as follows:

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Fixed maturity securities	$	3,453		$	878
Fixed maturity securities with noncredit OTTI losses in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		(116	)		(86	)
Total fixed maturity securities		3,337			792
Equity securities		(21	)		(21	)
Derivatives		238			(109	)
Short-term investments		(2	)		(2	)
Other		(6	)		(3	)
Subtotal		3,546			657
Amounts allocated from:
Insurance liability loss recognition		(143	)		(33	)
DAC and VOBA related to noncredit OTTI losses recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		9			5
DAC and VOBA		(518	)		(126	)
Subtotal		(652	)		(154	)
Deferred income tax benefit (expense) related to noncredit OTTI losses recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		39			30
Deferred income tax benefit (expense)		(1,032	)		(196	)
Net unrealized investment gains (losses)	$	1,901		$	337

The changes in fixed maturity securities with noncredit OTTI losses in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), were as follows:

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	(86	)	$	(141	)
Noncredit OTTI losses recognized (1)		5			(53	)
Transferred to retained earnings (2)		—			16
Securities sold with previous noncredit OTTI loss		22			28
Subsequent changes in estimated fair value		(57	)		64
Balance, end of period	$	(116	)	$	(86	)

(1) Noncredit OTTI losses recognized, net of DAC, were $9 million and ($44) million for the periods ended September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.

20

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

(2) Amounts transferred to retained earnings were in connection with the adoption of guidance related to the consolidation of VIEs as described in Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2010 Annual Report.

The changes in net unrealized investment gains (losses) were as follows:

	Nine Months
	Ended
	September 30, 2011
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	337
Fixed maturity securities on which noncredit OTTI losses have been recognized		(30	)
Unrealized investment gains (losses) during the period		2,919
Unrealized investment gains (losses) relating to:
Insurance liability gain (loss) recognition		(110	)
DAC and VOBA related to noncredit OTTI losses recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		4
DAC and VOBA		(392	)
Deferred income tax benefit (expense) related to noncredit OTTI losses recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		9
Deferred income tax benefit (expense)		(836	)
Balance, end of period	$	1,901
Change in net unrealized investment gains (losses)	$	1,564

21

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Continuous Gross Unrealized Losses and OTTI Losses for Fixed Maturity and Equity SecuritiesAvailable-for-Sale by Sector

The following tables present the estimated fair value and gross unrealized losses of the Company’s fixed maturity and equity securities in an unrealized loss position, aggregated by sector and by length of time that the securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position. The unrealized loss amounts presented below include the noncredit component of OTTI loss. Fixed maturity securities on which a noncredit OTTI loss has been recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) are categorized by length of time as being “less than 12 months” or “equal to or greater than 12 months” in a continuous unrealized loss position based on the point in time that the estimated fair value initially declined to below the amortized cost basis and not the period of time since the unrealized loss was deemed a noncredit OTTI loss.

	September 30, 2011
					Equal to or Greater
	Less than 12 Months				than 12 Months				Total
	Estimated		Gross		Estimated		Gross		Estimated		Gross
	Fair		Unrealized		Fair		Unrealized		Fair		Unrealized
	Value		Losses		Value		Losses		Value		Losses
	(In millions, except number of securities)
Fixed Maturity Securities:
U.S. corporate securities	$	1,751	$	74	$	848	$	157	$	2,599	$	231
U.S. Treasury and agency securities		1,678		2		20		1		1,698		3
Foreign corporate securities		1,360		71		157		45		1,517		116
RMBS		543		70		895		160		1,438		230
CMBS		446		8		105		11		551		19
State and political subdivision securities		42		2		350		60		392		62
ABS		715		37		346		65		1,061		102
Foreign government securities		69		3		3		—		72		3
Total fixed maturity securities	$	6,604	$	267	$	2,724	$	499	$	9,328	$	766
Equity Securities:
Non-redeemable preferred stock	$	45	$	7	$	51	$	20	$	96	$	27
Common stock		20		9		—		—		20		9
Total equity securities	$	65	$	16	$	51	$	20	$	116	$	36
Total number of securities in an unrealized loss position		846				474

22

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	December 31, 2010
					Equal to or Greater
	Less than 12 Months				than 12 Months				Total
	Estimated		Gross		Estimated		Gross		Estimated		Gross
	Fair		Unrealized		Fair		Unrealized		Fair		Unrealized
	Value		Losses		Value		Losses		Value		Losses
	(In millions, except number of securities)
Fixed Maturity Securities:
U.S. corporate securities	$	1,956	$	56	$	1,800	$	246	$	3,756	$	302
U.S. Treasury and agency securities		2,857		113		85		19		2,942		132
Foreign corporate securities		727		24		816		103		1,543		127
RMBS		2,228		59		1,368		238		3,596		297
CMBS		68		1		237		38		305		39
State and political subdivision securities		716		36		352		95		1,068		131
ABS		245		5		590		97		835		102
Foreign government securities		49		1		9		1		58		2
Total fixed maturity securities	$	8,846	$	295	$	5,257	$	837	$	14,103	$	1,132
Equity Securities:
Non-redeemable preferred stock	$	26	$	5	$	187	$	42	$	213	$	47
Common stock		9		1		—		—		9		1
Total equity securities	$	35	$	6	$	187	$	42	$	222	$	48
Total number of securities in an unrealized loss position		759				637

23

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Aging of Gross Unrealized Losses and OTTI Losses for Fixed Maturity and Equity SecuritiesAvailable-for-Sale

The following tables present the cost or amortized cost, gross unrealized losses, including the portion of OTTI loss on fixed maturity securities recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), gross unrealized losses as a percentage of cost or amortized cost and number of securities for fixed maturity and equity securities where the estimated fair value had declined and remained below cost or amortized cost by less than 20%, or 20% or more at:

	September 30, 2011
	Cost or Amortized Cost				Gross Unrealized Losses						Number of Securities
	Less than		20% or		Less than			20% or			Less than		20% or
	20%		more		20%			more			20%		more
	(In millions, except number of securities)
Fixed Maturity Securities:
Less than six months	$	6,289	$	837	$	174		$	225			730		81
Six months or greater but less than nine months		145		37		8			11			25		7
Nine months or greater but less than twelve months		172		93		5			25			40		3
Twelve months or greater		2,254		267		205			113			370		36
Total	$	8,860	$	1,234	$	392		$	374
Percentage of amortized cost						4	%		30	%
Equity Securities:
Less than six months	$	37	$	60	$	3		$	22			16		9
Six months or greater but less than nine months		—		—		—			—			—		1
Nine months or greater but less than twelve months		12		—		1			—			5		1
Twelve months or greater		26		17		4			6			4		4
Total	$	75	$	77	$	8		$	28
Percentage of cost						11	%		36	%

24

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	December 31, 2010
	Cost or Amortized Cost				Gross Unrealized Losses						Number of Securities
	Less than		20% or		Less than			20% or			Less than		20% or
	20%		more		20%			more			20%		more
	(In millions, except number of securities)
Fixed Maturity Securities:
Less than six months	$	8,882	$	439	$	268		$	109			686		43
Six months or greater but less than nine months		152		40		6			13			30		10
Nine months or greater but less than twelve months		48		25		2			11			11		3
Twelve months or greater		4,768		881		450			273			475		101
Total	$	13,850	$	1,385	$	726		$	406
Percentage of amortized cost						5	%		29	%
Equity Securities:
Less than six months	$	31	$	30	$	4		$	7			8		12
Six months or greater but less than nine months		—		3		—			1			—		1
Nine months or greater but less than twelve months		5		7		—			2			1		1
Twelve months or greater		150		44		18			16			12		5
Total	$	186	$	84	$	22		$	26
Percentage of cost						12	%		31	%

Equity securities with gross unrealized losses of 20% or more for twelve months or greater decreased from $16 million at December 31, 2010 to $6 million at September 30, 2011. As shown in the section “— Evaluating Temporarily ImpairedAvailable-for-Sale Securities” below, all of the equity securities with gross unrealized losses of 20% or more for twelve months or greater at September 30, 2011 were financial services industry investment grade non-redeemable preferred stock, of which 33% were rated A or better.

25

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Concentration of Gross Unrealized Losses and OTTI Losses for Fixed Maturity and Equity SecuritiesAvailable-for-Sale

The Company’s gross unrealized losses related to its fixed maturity and equity securities, including the portion of OTTI losses on fixed maturity securities recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) were $802 million and $1.2 billion at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The concentration, calculated as a percentage of gross unrealized losses (including OTTI losses), by sector and industry was as follows at:

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
Sector:
U.S. corporate securities		29	%		26	%
RMBS		29			25
Foreign corporate securities		14			11
ABS		13			9
State and political subdivision securities		8			11
CMBS		2			3
U.S. Treasury and agency securities		—			11
Other		5			4
Total		100	%		100	%
Industry:
Mortgage-backed		31	%		28	%
Finance		22			19
Asset-backed		13			9
State and political subdivision securities		8			11
Consumer		8			5
Utility		4			3
Communications		4			2
Transportation		3			1
Industrial		2			1
U.S. Treasury and agency securities		—			11
Other		5			10
Total		100	%		100	%

26

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Evaluating Temporarily ImpairedAvailable-for-Sale Securities

The following table presents the Company’s fixed maturity and equity securities, each with gross unrealized losses of greater than $10 million, the number of securities, total gross unrealized losses and percentage of total gross unrealized losses at:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Fixed Maturity			Equity			Fixed Maturity			Equity
	Securities			Securities			Securities			Securities
	(In millions, except number of securities)
Number of securities		10			—			15			—
Total gross unrealized losses	$	158		$	—		$	210		$	—
Percentage of total gross unrealized losses		21	%		—	%		19	%		—	%

Fixed maturity and equity securities, each with gross unrealized losses greater than $10 million, decreased $52 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2011. The decline in, or improvement in, gross unrealized losses for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 was primarily attributable to a decrease in interest rates, partially offset by increasing credit spreads. These securities were included in the Company’s OTTI review process. Based upon the Company’s current evaluation of these securities and otheravailable-for-sale securities in an unrealized loss position in accordance with its impairment policy, and the Company’s current intentions and assessments (as applicable to the type of security) about holding, selling and any requirements to sell these securities, the Company has concluded that these securities are notother-than-temporarily impaired.

In the Company’s impairment review process, the duration and severity of an unrealized loss position for equity securities are given greater weight and consideration than for fixed maturity securities. An extended and severe unrealized loss position on a fixed maturity security may not have any impact on the ability of the issuer to service all scheduled interest and principal payments and the Company’s evaluation of recoverability of all contractual cash flows or the ability to recover an amount at least equal to its amortized cost based on the present value of the expected future cash flows to be collected. In contrast, for an equity security, greater weight and consideration are given by the Company to a decline in market value and the likelihood such market value decline will recover.

The following table presents certain information about the Company’s equity securitiesavailable-for-sale with gross unrealized losses of 20% or more at September 30, 2011:

			Non-Redeemable Preferred Stock
			All Types of
	All Equity		Non-Redeemable					Investment Grade
	Securities		Preferred Stock					All Industries					Financial Services Industry
	Gross		Gross		% of All			Gross		% of All			Gross					% A
	Unrealized		Unrealized		Equity			Unrealized		Non-Redeemable			Unrealized		% of All			Rated or
	Losses		Losses		Securities			Losses		Preferred Stock			Losses		Industries			Better
	(In millions)							(In millions)					(In millions)
Less than six months	$	22	$	14		64	%	$	10		71	%	$	10		100	%		90	%
Six months or greater but less than twelve months		—		—		—	%		—		—	%		—		—	%		—	%
Twelve months or greater		6		6		100	%		6		100	%		6		100	%		33	%
All equity securities with gross unrealized losses of 20% or more	$	28	$	20		71	%	$	16		80	%	$	16		100	%		69	%

27

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

In connection with the equity securities impairment review process, the Company evaluated its holdings in non-redeemable preferred stock, particularly those in the financial services industry. The Company considered several factors including whether there has been any deterioration in credit of the issuer and the likelihood of recovery in value of non-redeemable preferred stock with a severe or an extended unrealized loss. The Company also considered whether any issuers of non-redeemable preferred stock with an unrealized loss held by the Company, regardless of credit rating, have deferred any dividend payments. No such dividend payments had been deferred.

With respect to common stock holdings, the Company considered the duration and severity of the unrealized losses for securities in an unrealized loss position of 20% or more; and the duration of unrealized losses for securities in an unrealized loss position of less than 20% in an extended unrealized loss position (i.e., 12 months or greater).

Future OTTIs will depend primarily on economic fundamentals, issuer performance (including changes in the present value of future cash flows expected to be collected), changes in credit ratings, changes in collateral valuation, changes in interest rates and changes in credit spreads. If economic fundamentals and any of the above factors deteriorate, additional OTTIs may be incurred in upcoming quarters.

Other Securities

The table below presents certain information about the Company’s securities for which the fair value option (“FVO”) has been elected:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
FVO general account securities	$	47	$	7
FVO contractholder-directed unit-linked investments		3,110		2,240
Total other securities — at estimated fair value	$	3,157	$	2,247

See Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2010 Annual Report for discussion of FVO contractholder-directed unit-linked investments. See “— Net Investment Income” for the net investment income recognized on other securities and the related changes in estimated fair value subsequent to purchase included in net investment income.

28

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Net Investment Gains (Losses)

The components of net investment gains (losses) were as follows:

	Three Months						Nine Months
	Ended						Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(In millions)
Total gains (losses) on fixed maturity securities:
Total OTTI losses recognized	$	(5	)	$	(24	)	$	(35	)	$	(77	)
Less: Noncredit portion of OTTI losses transferred to and recognized in other comprehensive income (loss)		(9	)		13			(5	)		36
Net OTTI losses on fixed maturity securities recognized in earnings		(14	)		(11	)		(40	)		(41	)
Fixed maturity securities — net gains (losses) on sales and disposals		79			12			61			74
Total gains (losses) on fixed maturity securities		65			1			21			33
Other net investment gains (losses):
Equity securities		(1	)		2			(24	)		21
Mortgage loans		8			(1	)		26			(16	)
Real estate and real estate joint ventures		(1	)		—			(1	)		(19	)
Other limited partnership interests		(2	)		(2	)		(4	)		(12	)
Other investment portfolio gains (losses)		(2	)		3			(7	)		10
Subtotal — investment portfolio gains (losses)		67			3			11			17
FVO consolidated securitization entities (“CSEs”) — changes in estimated fair value:
Commercial mortgage loans		(64	)		114			(39	)		767
Long-term debt — related to commercial mortgage loans		55			(108	)		44			(755	)
Other gains (losses)		—			—			1			67
Subtotal FVO CSEs and other gains (losses)		(9	)		6			6			79
Total net investment gains (losses)	$	58		$	9		$	17		$	96

See “— Variable Interest Entities” for discussion of CSEs included in the table above. See ‘‘— Related Party Investment Transactions” for discussion of affiliated net investment gains (losses) related to transfers of invested assets to affiliates.

Gains (losses) from foreign currency transactions included within net investment gains (losses) were ($2) million and ($5) million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and $2 million and $78 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

29

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Proceeds from sales or disposals of fixed maturity and equity securities and the components of fixed maturity and equity securities net investment gains (losses) were as shown below. Investment gains and losses on sales of securities are determined on a specific identification basis.

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010		2011			2010
	Fixed Maturity Securities						Equity Securities					Total
	(In millions)
Proceeds	$	3,697		$	2,633		$	19		$	10	$	3,716		$	2,643
Gross investment gains	$	92		$	33		$	—		$	2	$	92		$	35
Gross investment losses		(13	)		(21	)		—			—		(13	)		(21	)
Total OTTI losses recognized in earnings:
Credit-related		(14	)		(10	)		—			—		(14	)		(10	)
Other (1)		—			(1	)		(1	)		—		(1	)		(1	)
Total OTTI losses recognized in earnings		(14	)		(11	)		(1	)		—		(15	)		(11	)
Net investment gains (losses)	$	65		$	1		$	(1	)	$	2	$	64		$	3

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010			2011			2010
	Fixed Maturity Securities						Equity Securities						Total
	(In millions)
Proceeds	$	8,739		$	7,897		$	163		$	89		$	8,902		$	7,986
Gross investment gains	$	143		$	164		$	5		$	22		$	148		$	186
Gross investment losses		(82	)		(90	)		(22	)		(1	)		(104	)		(91	)
Total OTTI losses recognized in earnings:
Credit-related		(31	)		(39	)		—			—			(31	)		(39	)
Other (1)		(9	)		(2	)		(7	)		—			(16	)		(2	)
Total OTTI losses recognized in earnings		(40	)		(41	)		(7	)		—			(47	)		(41	)
Net investment gains (losses)	$	21		$	33		$	(24	)	$	21		$	(3	)	$	54

(1) Other OTTI losses recognized in earnings include impairments on equity securities, impairments on perpetual hybrid securities classified within fixed maturity securities where the primary reason for the impairment was the severity and/or the duration of an unrealized loss position and fixed maturity securities where there is an intent to sell or it is more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell the security before recovery of the decline in estimated fair value.

30

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Fixed maturity security OTTI losses recognized in earnings related to the following sectors and industries within the U.S. and foreign corporate securities sector:

	Three Months				Nine Months
	Ended				Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(In millions)
Sector:
U.S. and foreign corporate securities — by industry:
Finance	$	—	$	5	$	9	$	7
Communications		5		1		9		4
Consumer		—		—		—		9
Utility		—		—		—		2
Total U.S. and foreign corporate securities		5		6		18		22
RMBS		9		3		14		10
ABS		—		1		5		1
CMBS		—		1		3		8
Total	$	14	$	11	$	40	$	41

Equity security OTTI losses recognized in earnings related to the following sectors and industries:

	Three Months				Nine Months
	Ended				Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(In millions)
Sector:
Non-redeemable preferred stock	$	—	$	—	$	6	$	—
Common stock		1		—		1		—
Total	$	1	$	—	$	7	$	—
Industry:
Financial services industry — perpetual hybrid securities	$	—	$	—	$	6	$	—
Other industries		1		—		1		—
Total	$	1	$	—	$	7	$	—

31

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Credit Loss Rollforward — Rollforward of the Cumulative Credit Loss Component of OTTI Loss Recognized in Earnings on Fixed Maturity Securities Still Held for Which a Portion of the OTTI Loss Was Recognized in Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)

The table below presents a rollforward of the cumulative credit loss component of OTTI loss recognized in earnings on fixed maturity securities still held by the Company for which a portion of the OTTI loss was recognized in other comprehensive income (loss):

	Three Months						Nine Months
	Ended						Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(In millions)
Balance, beginning of period	$	46		$	68		$	63		$	213
Additions:
Initial impairments — credit loss OTTI recognized on securities not previously impaired		2			2			6			5
Additional impairments — credit loss OTTI recognized on securities previously impaired		8			2			12			8
Reductions:
Due to sales (maturities, pay downs or prepayments) during the period of securities previously impaired as credit loss OTTI		(1	)		(8	)		(5	)		(60	)
Due to securities de-recognized in connection with the adoption of new guidance related to the consolidation of VIEs		—			—			—			(100	)
Due to securities impaired to net present value of expected future cash flows		(1	)		—			(21	)		—
Due to increases in cash flows — accretion of previous credit loss OTTI		—			—			(1	)		(2	)
Balance, end of period	$	54		$	64		$	54		$	64

32

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Net Investment Income

The components of net investment income were as follows:

	Three Months						Nine Months
	Ended						Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(In millions)
Investment income:
Fixed maturity securities	$	541		$	524		$	1,614		$	1,578
Equity securities		1			1			8			10
Other securities — FVO general account securities (1)		—			—			1			—
Mortgage loans		86			78			257			218
Policy loans		16			17			47			50
Real estate and real estate joint ventures		10			24			12			(1	)
Other limited partnership interests		47			36			167			138
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments		2			5			5			8
International joint ventures		2			(2	)		3			(4	)
Other		2			(8	)		7			3
Subtotal		707			675			2,121			2,000
Less: Investment expenses		22			26			73			72
Subtotal, net		685			649			2,048			1,928
Other securities — FVO contractholder-directed unit-linked investments (1)		(129	)		72			(99	)		98
FVO CSEs — Commercial mortgage loans		95			102			286			312
Subtotal		(34	)		174			187			410
Net investment income	$	651		$	823		$	2,235		$	2,338

(1) Changes in estimated fair value subsequent to purchase included in net investment income were:

Other securities — FVO general account securities	$	—		$	—	$	1		$	—
Other securities — FVO contractholder-directed unit-linked investments	$	(186	)	$	51	$	(193	)	$	54

See “— Variable Interest Entities” for discussion of CSEs included in the table above.

Affiliated investment expenses, included in the table above, were $17 million and $50 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and $14 million and $41 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. See “— Related Party Investment Transactions” for discussion of affiliated net investment income included in the table above.

Securities Lending

The Company participates in a securities lending program whereby blocks of securities, which are included in fixed maturity securities and short-term investments, are loaned to third parties, primarily brokerage firms and commercial banks. The Company obtains collateral, usually cash, in an amount generally equal to 102% of the estimated fair value of the securities loaned, which is obtained at the inception of a loan and maintained at a level

33

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

greater than or equal to 100% for the duration of the loan. Securities loaned under such transactions may be sold or repledged by the transferee. The Company is liable to return to its counterparties the cash collateral under its control. These transactions are treated as financing arrangements and the associated liability is recorded at the amount of the cash received.

Elements of the securities lending program are presented below at:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Securities on loan:
Amortized cost	$	5,894	$	6,992
Estimated fair value	$	7,010	$	7,054
Aging of cash collateral liability:
Open (1)	$	751	$	1,292
Less than thirty days		3,982		3,297
Thirty days or greater but less than sixty days		1,425		1,221
Sixty days or greater but less than ninety days		587		326
Ninety days or greater		97		1,002
Total cash collateral liability	$	6,842	$	7,138
Security collateral on deposit from counterparties	$	253	$	—
Reinvestment portfolio — estimated fair value	$	6,686	$	6,916

(1) Open — meaning that the related loaned security could be returned to the Company on the next business day, requiring the Company to immediately return the cash collateral.

The estimated fair value of the securities on loan related to the cash collateral on open at September 30, 2011 was $762 million, of which $705 million were U.S. Treasury and agency securities which, if put to the Company, can be immediately sold to satisfy the cash requirements. The remainder of the securities on loan was primarily U.S. Treasury and agency securities, and very liquid RMBS. The U.S. Treasury securities on loan were primarily holdings ofon-the-run U.S. Treasury securities, the most liquid U.S. Treasury securities available. If these high quality securities that are on loan are put back to the Company, the proceeds from immediately selling these securities can be used to satisfy the related cash requirements. The reinvestment portfolio acquired with the cash collateral consisted principally of fixed maturity securities (including U.S. Treasury and agency securities, ABS, U.S. corporate securities and RMBS). If the on loan securities or the reinvestment portfolio become less liquid, the Company has the liquidity resources of most of its general account available to meet any potential cash demands when securities are put back to the Company.

Security collateral on deposit from counterparties in connection with the securities lending transactions may not be sold or repledged, unless the counterparty is in default, and is not reflected in the consolidated financial statements.

34

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Invested Assets on Deposit and Pledged as Collateral

Invested assets on deposit and pledged as collateral are presented below at estimated fair value for cash and cash equivalents and fixed maturity securities and at carrying value for mortgage loans.

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Invested assets on deposit:
Regulatory agencies	$	55	$	55
Invested assets pledged as collateral:
Funding agreements — Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston		529		211
Funding agreements — Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation		231		231
Derivative transactions		112		83
Total invested assets on deposit and pledged as collateral	$	927	$	580

See Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2010 Annual Report for a description of the types of invested assets on deposit and pledged as collateral and selected other information about the related program or counterparty.

See also “— Securities Lending” for the amount of the Company’s cash received from and due back to counterparties pursuant to the Company’s securities lending program. See also “— Variable Interest Entities” for assets of certain CSEs that can only be used to settle liabilities of such entities.

Mortgage Loans

Mortgage loans are summarized as follows at:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Carrying			% of			Carrying			% of
	Value			Total			Value			Total
	(In millions)						(In millions)
Mortgage loans:
Commercial	$	5,042			52.9	%	$	4,635			36.4	%
Agricultural		1,324			13.9			1,342			10.6
Subtotal		6,366			66.8	%		5,977			47.0	%
Valuation allowances		(61	)		(0.6	)		(87	)		(0.7	)
Subtotal mortgage loans, net		6,305			66.2	%		5,890			46.3	%
Commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs — FVO		3,227			33.8			6,840			53.7
Total mortgage loans, net	$	9,532			100.0	%	$	12,730			100.0	%

See “— Variable Interest Entities” for discussion of CSEs included in the table above and the decrease in commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs — FVO. See “— Related Party Investment Transactions” for discussion of affiliated mortgage loans included in the table above.

Concentration of Credit Risk.  The Company diversifies its mortgage loan portfolio by both geographic region and property type to reduce the risk of concentration. The Company’s commercial and agricultural mortgage loans are collateralized by properties primarily located in the U.S. The carrying value of the Company’s commercial and agricultural mortgage loans located in California, New York and Texas were 25%, 17% and 6%, respectively, of total mortgage loans (excluding commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs) at September 30, 2011. Additionally,

35

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

the Company manages risk when originating commercial and agricultural mortgage loans by generally lending only up to 75% of the estimated fair value of the underlying real estate collateral.

The following tables present the recorded investment in mortgage loans, by portfolio segment, by method of evaluation of credit loss, and the related valuation allowances, by type of credit loss, at:

	Commercial		Agricultural		Total
	(In millions)
September 30, 2011:
Mortgage loans:
Evaluated individually for credit losses	$	23	$	—	$	23
Evaluated collectively for credit losses		5,019		1,324		6,343
Total mortgage loans		5,042		1,324		6,366
Valuation allowances:
Specific credit losses		15		—		15
Non-specifically identified credit losses		43		3		46
Total valuation allowances		58		3		61
Mortgage loans, net of valuation allowance	$	4,984	$	1,321	$	6,305
December 31, 2010:
Mortgage loans:
Evaluated individually for credit losses	$	23	$	—	$	23
Evaluated collectively for credit losses		4,612		1,342		5,954
Total mortgage loans		4,635		1,342		5,977
Valuation allowances:
Specific credit losses		23		—		23
Non-specifically identified credit losses		61		3		64
Total valuation allowances		84		3		87
Mortgage loans, net of valuation allowance	$	4,551	$	1,339	$	5,890

36

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following tables present the changes in the valuation allowance, by portfolio segment:

	Mortgage Loan Valuation Allowances
	Commercial			Agricultural			Total
	(In millions)
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Balance, beginning of period	$	66		$	4		$	70
Provision (release)		(8	)		(1	)		(9	)
Charge-offs, net of recoveries		—			—			—
Balance, end of period	$	58		$	3		$	61
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Balance, beginning of period	$	90		$	3		$	93
Provision (release)		—			—			—
Charge-offs, net of recoveries		(6	)		—			(6	)
Balance, end of period	$	84		$	3		$	87
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Balance, beginning of period	$	84		$	3		$	87
Provision (release)		(26	)		—			(26	)
Charge-offs, net of recoveries		—			—			—
Balance, end of period	$	58		$	3		$	61
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Balance, beginning of period	$	74		$	3		$	77
Provision (release)		16			—			16
Charge-offs, net of recoveries		(6	)		—			(6	)
Balance, end of period	$	84		$	3		$	87

37

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Commercial Mortgage Loans — by Credit Quality Indicators with Estimated Fair Value.  Presented below for the commercial mortgage loans is the recorded investment, prior to valuation allowances, by the indicatedloan-to-value ratio categories and debt service coverage ratio categories and estimated fair value of such mortgage loans by the indicatedloan-to-value ratio categories at:

	Commercial
	Recorded Investment
	Debt Service Coverage Ratios											Estimated
	> 1.20x		1.00x - 1.20x		< 1.00x		Total		% of Total			Fair Value		% of Total
	(In millions)								(In millions)
September 30, 2011:
Loan-to-value ratios:
Less than 65%	$	2,818	$	25	$	209	$	3,052		60.6	%	$	3,233		62.6	%
65% to 75%		758		43		67		868		17.2			891		17.2
76% to 80%		262		—		26		288		5.7			286		5.5
Greater than 80%		598		148		88		834		16.5			758		14.7
Total	$	4,436	$	216	$	390	$	5,042		100.0	%	$	5,168		100.0	%
December 31, 2010:
Loan-to-value ratios:
Less than 65%	$	2,051	$	11	$	34	$	2,096		45.2	%	$	2,196		47.1	%
65% to 75%		824		99		148		1,071		23.1			1,099		23.6
76% to 80%		301		29		7		337		7.3			347		7.4
Greater than 80%		828		163		140		1,131		24.4			1,018		21.9
Total	$	4,004	$	302	$	329	$	4,635		100.0	%	$	4,660		100.0	%

Agricultural Mortgage Loans — by Credit Quality Indicator.  The recorded investment in agricultural mortgage loans, prior to valuation allowances, by credit quality indicator, is as shown below. The estimated fair value of agricultural mortgage loans was $1.4 billion at both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010.

	Agricultural
	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Recorded Investment		% of Total			Recorded Investment		% of Total
	(In millions)					(In millions)
Loan-to-value ratios:
Less than 65%	$	1,316		99.4	%	$	1,289		96.0	%
65% to 75%		8		0.6			53		4.0
Total	$	1,324		100.0	%	$	1,342		100.0	%

Past Due and Interest Accrual Status of Mortgage Loans.  The Company has a high quality, well performing, mortgage loan portfolio with approximately 99% of all mortgage loans classified as performing at both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The Company defines delinquent mortgage loans consistent with industry practice, when interest and principal payments are past due as follows: commercial mortgage loans — 60 days or more; and agricultural mortgage loans — 90 days or more. The recorded investment in mortgage loans, prior to

38

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

valuation allowances, past due according to these aging categories, greater than 90 days past due and still accruing interest and in nonaccrual status, by portfolio segment, were as follows at:

					Greater than 90 Days Past Due
	Past Due				Still Accruing Interest				Nonaccrual Status
	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010		September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010		September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Commercial	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	1
Agricultural		—		7		—		—		—		6
Total	$	—	$	7	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	7

Impaired Mortgage Loans.  The unpaid principal balance, recorded investment, valuation allowances and carrying value, net of valuation allowances, for impaired mortgage loans, including those modified in a troubled debt restructuring, by portfolio segment, were as follows at:

	Impaired Mortgage Loans
									Loans without
	Loans with a Valuation Allowance								a Valuation Allowance				All Impaired Loans
	Unpaid								Unpaid				Unpaid
	Principal		Recorded		Valuation		Carrying		Principal		Recorded		Principal		Carrying
	Balance (1)		Investment		Allowances		Value		Balance (1)		Investment		Balance (1)		Value
	(In millions)
September 30, 2011:
Commercial	$	23	$	23	$	15	$	8	$	15	$	15	$	38	$	23
Agricultural		—		—		—		—		—		—		—		—
Total	$	23	$	23	$	15	$	8	$	15	$	15	$	38	$	23
December 31, 2010:
Commercial	$	23	$	23	$	23	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	23	$	—
Agricultural		—		—		—		—		7		7		7		7
Total	$	23	$	23	$	23	$	—	$	7	$	7	$	30	$	7

(1) Unpaid principal balance is generally prior to any charge-offs.

39

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The average investment in impaired mortgage loans, including those modified in a troubled debt restructuring, and the related interest income, by portfolio segment, was:

	Impaired Mortgage Loans
	Average Investment		Interest Income Recognized
			Cash Basis		Accrual Basis
	(In millions)
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Commercial	$	31	$	—	$	—
Agricultural		3		—		—
Total	$	34	$	—	$	—
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Commercial	$	50	$	—	$	—
Agricultural		17		—		—
Total	$	67	$	—	$	—
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Commercial	$	27	$	1	$	—
Agricultural		5		—		—
Total	$	32	$	1	$	—
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Commercial	$	44	$	2	$	—
Agricultural		14		—		—
Total	$	58	$	2	$	—

Mortgage Loans Modified in a Troubled Debt Restructuring. The Company has a high quality, well performing, mortgage loan portfolio. For a small portion of the portfolio, classified as troubled debt restructurings, the Company grants concessions related to the borrowers’ financial difficulties. Generally, the types of concessions include: reduction of the contractual interest rate, extension of the maturity date at an interest rate lower than current market interest ratesand/or a reduction of accrued interest. The Company considers the amount, timing and extent of the concession granted in determining any impairment or changes in the specific valuation allowance recorded in connection with the troubled debt restructuring. Through the continuous portfolio monitoring process, the Company may have recorded a specific valuation allowance prior to the quarter when the mortgage loan is modified in a troubled debt restructuring. Accordingly, the carrying value (after specific valuation allowance) before and after modification through a troubled debt restructuring may not change significantly, or may increase if the expected recovery is higher than the pre-modification recovery assessment. At September 30, 2011, the Company had one commercial mortgage loan modified during the period in a troubled debt restructuring with a pre-modification and post-modification carrying value of $15 million.

During the previous twelve months, the Company had no mortgage loans modified in a troubled debt restructuring with a subsequent payment default at September 30, 2011. Payment default is determined in the same manner as delinquency status — when interest and principal payments are past due as follows: commercial mortgage loans — 60 days or more; and agricultural mortgage loans — 90 days or more.

40

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Cash Equivalents

Cash equivalents, which include investments with an original or remaining maturity of three months or less at the time of purchase, were $648 million and $1,826 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.

Purchased Credit Impaired Investments

Investments acquired with evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination and for which it is probable at the acquisition date that the Company will be unable to collect all contractually required payments are classified as purchased credit impaired investments. For each investment, the excess of the cash flows expected to be collected as of the acquisition date over its acquisition date fair value is referred to as the accretable yield and is recognized as net investment income on an effective yield basis. If, subsequently, based on current information and events, it is probable that there is a significant increase in cash flows previously expected to be collected or if actual cash flows are significantly greater than cash flows previously expected to be collected, the accretable yield is adjusted prospectively. The excess of the contractually required payments (including interest) as of the acquisition date over the cash flows expected to be collected as of the acquisition date is referred to as the nonaccretable difference, and this amount is not expected to be realized as net investment income. Decreases in cash flows expected to be collected can result in OTTI.

The table below presents the purchased credit impaired fixed maturity securities held at:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Outstanding principal and interest balance (1)	$	486	$	20
Carrying value (2)	$	373	$	19

(1)	Represents the contractually required payments which is the sum of contractual principal, whether or not currently due, and accrued interest.
(2)	Estimated fair value plus accrued interest.

The following table presents information about purchased credit impaired fixed maturity securities acquired during the periods, as of their respective acquisition dates:

	Nine Months
	Ended
	September 30,
	2011		2010
	(In millions)
Contractually required payments (including interest)	$	806	$	—
Cash flows expected to be collected (1)	$	719	$	—
Fair value of investments acquired	$	381	$	—

(1) Represents undiscounted principal and interest cash flow expectations at the date of acquisition.

41

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following table presents activity for the accretable yield on purchased credit impaired fixed maturity securities for:

	Three Months					Nine Months
	Ended					Ended
	September 30,					September 30,
	2011			2010		2011			2010
	(In millions)
Accretable yield, beginning of period	$	306		$	—	$	5		$	—
Investments purchased		42			—		338			—
Accretion recognized in net investment income		(2	)		—		(5	)		—
Disposals		—			—		—			—
Reclassification (to) from nonaccretable difference		10			—		18			—
Accretable yield, end of period	$	356		$	—	$	356		$	—

Variable Interest Entities

The Company holds investments in certain entities that are VIEs. In certain instances, the Company holds both the power to direct the most significant activities of the entity, as well as an economic interest in the entity and, as such, is deemed to be the primary beneficiary or consolidator of the entity. The following table presents the total assets and total liabilities relating to VIEs for which the Company has concluded that it is the primary beneficiary and which are consolidated at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. Creditors or beneficial interest holders of VIEs where the Company is the primary beneficiary have no recourse to the general credit of the Company, as the Company’s obligation to the VIEs is limited to the amount of its committed investment.

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Consolidated securitization entities: (1)
Assets:
Mortgage loansheld-for-investment (commercial mortgage loans)	$	3,227	$	6,840
Accrued investment income		15		31
Total assets	$	3,242	$	6,871
Liabilities:
Long-term debt	$	3,158	$	6,773
Other liabilities		15		31
Total liabilities	$	3,173	$	6,804

(1) The Company consolidates former qualified special purpose entities (“QSPEs”) that are structured as CMBS. The assets of these entities can only be used to settle their respective liabilities, and under no circumstances is the Company or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates liable for any principal or interest shortfalls should any arise. The Company’s exposure was limited to that of its remaining investment in the former QSPEs of $57 million and $64 million at estimated fair value at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The long-term debt referred to above bears interest at primarily fixed rates ranging from 2.25% to 5.57%, payable primarily on a monthly basis and is expected to be repaid over the next six years. Interest expense related to these obligations, included in other expenses, was $92 million and $279 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and $101 million and $305 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. The Company sold certain of these CMBS investments in

42

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

the third quarter of 2011, resulting in the deconsolidation of such entities and their related mortgage loansheld-for-investment and long-term debt.

The following table presents the carrying amount and maximum exposure to loss relating to VIEs for which the Company holds significant variable interests but is not the primary beneficiary and which have not been consolidated at:

	September 30, 2011				December 31, 2010
			Maximum				Maximum
	Carrying		Exposure		Carrying		Exposure
	Amount		to Loss (1)		Amount		to Loss (1)
	(In millions)
Fixed maturity securitiesavailable-for-sale:
RMBS (2)	$	6,543	$	6,543	$	6,709	$	6,709
CMBS (2)		2,234		2,234		2,277		2,277
ABS (2)		2,017		2,017		1,869		1,869
U.S. corporate securities		427		427		336		336
Foreign corporate securities		232		232		348		348
Other limited partnership interests		1,314		2,001		1,192		1,992
Real estate joint ventures		26		29		10		35
Total	$	12,793	$	13,483	$	12,741	$	13,566

(1)

The maximum exposure to loss relating to the fixed maturity securities is equal to the carrying amounts or carrying amounts of retained interests. The maximum exposure to loss relating to the other limited partnership interests and real estate joint ventures is equal to the carrying amounts plus any unfunded commitments of the Company. Such a maximum loss would be expected to occur only upon bankruptcy of the issuer or investee.

(2)

For these variable interests, the Company’s involvement is limited to that of a passive investor.

As described in Note 5, the Company makes commitments to fund partnership investments in the normal course of business. Excluding these commitments, the Company did not provide financial or other support to investees designated as VIEs during the nine months ended September 30, 2011.

Related Party Investment Transactions

At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company held $96 million and $63 million, respectively, in the Metropolitan Money Market Pool and the MetLife Intermediate Income Pool, which are affiliated partnerships. These amounts are included in short-term investments. Net investment income from these investments was less than $1 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, and for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010.

43

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

In the normal course of business, the Company transfers invested assets, primarily consisting of fixed maturity securities, to and from affiliates. Invested assets transferred to and from affiliates were as follows:

	Three Months				Nine Months
	Ended				Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(In millions)
Estimated fair value of invested assets transferred to affiliates	$	—	$	31	$	—	$	476
Amortized cost of assets transferred to affiliates	$	—	$	30	$	—	$	436
Net investment gains (losses) recognized on transfers	$	—	$	1	$	—	$	40
Estimated fair value of invested assets transferred from affiliates	$	33	$	—	$	33	$	—

As more fully described in Note 2 of the Notes of the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2010 Annual Report, the Company has loans outstanding to wholly-owned real estate subsidiaries of an affiliate, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MLIC”). The carrying values of such loans were $198 million and $199 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Net investment income from these loans was $4 million and $11 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

During the third quarter of 2011, the Company issued a loan to Exeter Reassurance Company Ltd. (“Exeter”), an affiliate. The loan outstanding was $305 million at September 30, 2011, which was included in other invested assets. The loan is due on July 15, 2021, and bears interest, payable semi-annually, at 5.64%. Both the principal and interest payments have been guaranteed by MetLife. Net investment income from this loan was $4 million at both the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011. At September 30, 2011, the Company had committed to fund an additional $125 million to Exeter which will be funded in the fourth quarter of 2011. See Note 5.

3.   Derivative Financial Instruments

Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments

Derivatives are financial instruments whose values are derived from interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, credit spreadsand/or other financial indices. Derivatives may be exchange-traded or contracted in theover-the-counter (“OTC”) market. The Company uses a variety of derivatives, including swaps, forwards, futures and option contracts, to manage various risks relating to its ongoing business. To a lesser extent, the Company uses credit derivatives, such as credit default swaps, to synthetically replicate investment risks and returns which are not readily available in the cash market. The Company also purchases certain securities, issues certain insurance policies and investment contracts and engages in certain reinsurance contracts that have embedded derivatives.

Freestanding derivatives are carried on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets either as assets within other invested assets or as liabilities within other liabilities at estimated fair value as determined through the use of quoted market prices for exchange-traded derivatives or through the use of pricing models for OTC derivatives. The determination of estimated fair value, when quoted market values are not available, is based on market standard valuation methodologies and inputs that are assumed to be consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing the instruments. Derivative valuations can be affected by changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, financial indices, credit spreads, default risk (including the counterparties to the contract), volatility, liquidity and changes in estimates and assumptions used in the pricing models.

The Company does not offset the fair value amounts recognized for derivatives executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting agreement.

If a derivative is not designated as an accounting hedge or its use in managing risk does not qualify for hedge accounting, changes in the estimated fair value of the derivative are generally reported in net derivative gains

44

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

(losses) except for those (i) in policyholder benefits and claims for economic hedges of variable annuity guarantees included in future policy benefits; and (ii) in net investment income for economic hedges of equity method investments in joint ventures. The fluctuations in estimated fair value of derivatives which have not been designated for hedge accounting can result in significant volatility in net income.

To qualify for hedge accounting, at the inception of the hedging relationship, the Company formally documents its risk management objective and strategy for undertaking the hedging transaction, as well as its designation of the hedge as either (i) a hedge of the estimated fair value of a recognized asset or liability (“fair value hedge”); or (ii) a hedge of a forecasted transaction or of the variability of cash flows to be received or paid related to a recognized asset or liability (“cash flow hedge”). In this documentation, the Company sets forth how the hedging instrument is expected to hedge the designated risks related to the hedged item and sets forth the method that will be used to retrospectively and prospectively assess the hedging instrument’s effectiveness and the method which will be used to measure ineffectiveness. A derivative designated as a hedging instrument must be assessed as being highly effective in offsetting the designated risk of the hedged item. Hedge effectiveness is formally assessed at inception and periodically throughout the life of the designated hedging relationship. Assessments of hedge effectiveness and measurements of ineffectiveness are also subject to interpretation and estimation and different interpretations or estimates may have a material effect on the amount reported in net income.

The accounting for derivatives is complex and interpretations of the primary accounting guidance continue to evolve in practice. Judgment is applied in determining the availability and application of hedge accounting designations and the appropriate accounting treatment under such accounting guidance. If it was determined that hedge accounting designations were not appropriately applied, reported net income could be materially affected.

Under a fair value hedge, changes in the estimated fair value of the hedging derivative, including amounts measured as ineffectiveness, and changes in the estimated fair value of the hedged item related to the designated risk being hedged, are reported within net derivative gains (losses). The estimated fair values of the hedging derivatives are exclusive of any accruals that are separately reported in the consolidated statement of operations within interest income or interest expense to match the location of the hedged item. However, accruals that are not scheduled to settle until maturity are included in the estimated fair value of derivatives in the consolidated balance sheets.

Under a cash flow hedge, changes in the estimated fair value of the hedging derivative measured as effective are reported within other comprehensive income (loss), a separate component of stockholders’ equity, and the deferred gains or losses on the derivative are reclassified into the consolidated statement of operations when the Company’s earnings are affected by the variability in cash flows of the hedged item. Changes in the estimated fair value of the hedging instrument measured as ineffectiveness are reported within net derivative gains (losses). The estimated fair values of the hedging derivatives are exclusive of any accruals that are separately reported in the consolidated statement of operations within interest income or interest expense to match the location of the hedged item. However, accruals that are not scheduled to settle until maturity are included in the estimated fair value of derivatives in the consolidated balance sheets.

The Company discontinues hedge accounting prospectively when: (i) it is determined that the derivative is no longer highly effective in offsetting changes in the estimated fair value or cash flows of a hedged item; (ii) the derivative expires, is sold, terminated, or exercised; (iii) it is no longer probable that the hedged forecasted transaction will occur; or (iv) the derivative is de-designated as a hedging instrument.

When hedge accounting is discontinued because it is determined that the derivative is not highly effective in offsetting changes in the estimated fair value or cash flows of a hedged item, the derivative continues to be carried in the consolidated balance sheets at its estimated fair value, with changes in estimated fair value recognized currently in net derivative gains (losses). The carrying value of the hedged recognized asset or liability under a fair value hedge is no longer adjusted for changes in its estimated fair value due to the hedged risk, and the cumulative adjustment to its carrying value is amortized into income over the remaining life of the hedged item. Provided the

45

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

hedged forecasted transaction is still probable of occurrence, the changes in estimated fair value of derivatives recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) related to discontinued cash flow hedges are released into the consolidated statement of operations when the Company’s earnings are affected by the variability in cash flows of the hedged item.

When hedge accounting is discontinued because it is no longer probable that the forecasted transactions will occur on the anticipated date or within two months of that date, the derivative continues to be carried in the consolidated balance sheets at its estimated fair value, with changes in estimated fair value recognized currently in net derivative gains (losses). Deferred gains and losses of a derivative recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) pursuant to the discontinued cash flow hedge of a forecasted transaction that is no longer probable are recognized immediately in net derivative gains (losses).

In all other situations in which hedge accounting is discontinued, the derivative is carried at its estimated fair value in the consolidated balance sheets, with changes in its estimated fair value recognized in the current period as net derivative gains (losses).

The Company is also a party to financial instruments that contain terms which are deemed to be embedded derivatives. The Company assesses each identified embedded derivative to determine whether it is required to be bifurcated. If the instrument would not be accounted for in its entirety at estimated fair value and it is determined that the terms of the embedded derivative are not clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics of the host contract, and that a separate instrument with the same terms would qualify as a derivative instrument, the embedded derivative is bifurcated from the host contract and accounted for as a freestanding derivative. Such embedded derivatives are carried in the consolidated balance sheets at estimated fair value with the host contract and changes in their estimated fair value are generally reported in net derivative gains (losses). If the Company is unable to properly identify and measure an embedded derivative for separation from its host contract, the entire contract is carried on the balance sheet at estimated fair value, with changes in estimated fair value recognized in the current period in net investment gains (losses) or net investment income. Additionally, the Company may elect to carry an entire contract on the balance sheet at estimated fair value, with changes in estimated fair value recognized in the current period in net investment gains (losses) or net investment income if that contract contains an embedded derivative that requires bifurcation.

See Note 4 for information about the fair value hierarchy for derivatives.

Primary Risks Managed by Derivative Financial Instruments

The Company is exposed to various risks relating to its ongoing business operations, including interest rate risk, foreign currency risk, credit risk and equity market risk. The Company uses a variety of strategies to manage these risks, including the use of derivative instruments. The following table presents the gross notional amount,

46

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

estimated fair value and primary underlying risk exposure of the Company’s derivative financial instruments, excluding embedded derivatives, held at:

		September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
Primary Underlying		Notional		Estimated Fair Value (1)				Notional		Estimated Fair Value (1)
Risk Exposure	Instrument Type	Amount		Assets		Liabilities		Amount		Assets		Liabilities
						(In millions)
Interest rate	Interest rate swaps	$	10,538	$	1,301	$	385	$	9,102	$	658	$	252
	Interest rate floors		7,986		324		151		7,986		127		62
	Interest rate caps		7,658		13		—		7,158		29		1
	Interest rate futures		3,659		7		1		1,966		5		7
	Interest rate forwards		665		128		—		695		—		71
Foreign currency	Foreign currency swaps		2,011		354		59		2,561		585		68
	Foreign currency forwards		149		6		1		151		4		1
Credit	Credit default swaps		2,448		15		45		1,324		15		22
Equity market	Equity futures		574		15		—		93		—		—
	Equity options		2,125		441		—		733		77		—
	Variance swaps		2,151		71		5		1,081		20		8
	Total rate of return swaps		127		—		—		—		—		—
	Total	$	40,091	$	2,675	$	647	$	32,850	$	1,520	$	492

(1) The estimated fair value of all derivatives in an asset position is reported within other invested assets in the consolidated balance sheets and the estimated fair value of all derivatives in a liability position is reported within other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

Interest rate swaps are used by the Company primarily to reduce market risks from changes in interest rates and to alter interest rate exposure arising from mismatches between assets and liabilities (duration mismatches). In an interest rate swap, the Company agrees with another party to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between fixed rate and floating rate interest amounts as calculated by reference to an agreed notional principal amount. These transactions are entered into pursuant to master agreements that provide for a single net payment to be made by the counterparty at each due date. The Company utilizes interest rate swaps in fair value, cash flow and non-qualifying hedging relationships.

The Company also enters into basis swaps to better match the cash flows from assets and related liabilities. In a basis swap, both legs of the swap are floating with each based on a different index. Generally, no cash is exchanged at the outset of the contract and no principal payments are made by either party. A single net payment is usually made by one counterparty at each due date. Basis swaps are included in interest rate swaps in the preceding table. The Company utilizes basis swaps in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Inflation swaps are used as an economic hedge to reduce inflation risk generated from inflation-indexed liabilities. Inflation swaps are included in interest rate swaps in the preceding table. The Company utilizes inflation swaps in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Implied volatility swaps are used by the Company primarily as economic hedges of interest rate risk associated with the Company’s investments in mortgage-backed securities. In an implied volatility swap, the Company exchanges fixed payments for floating payments that are linked to certain market volatility measures. If implied volatility rises, the floating payments that the Company receives will increase, and if implied volatility falls, the floating payments that the Company receives will decrease. Implied volatility swaps are included in interest rate

47

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

swaps in the preceding table. The Company utilizes implied volatility swaps in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

The Company purchases interest rate caps and floors primarily to protect its floating rate liabilities against rises in interest rates above a specified level, and against interest rate exposure arising from mismatches between assets and liabilities (duration mismatches), as well as to protect its minimum rate guarantee liabilities against declines in interest rates below a specified level, respectively. In certain instances, the Company locks in the economic impact of existing purchased caps and floors by entering into offsetting written caps and floors. The Company utilizes interest rate caps and floors in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

In exchange-traded interest rate (Treasury and swap) futures transactions, the Company agrees to purchase or sell a specified number of contracts, the value of which is determined by the different classes of interest rate securities, and to post variation margin on a daily basis in an amount equal to the difference in the daily market values of those contracts. The Company enters into exchange-traded futures with regulated futures commission merchants that are members of the exchange. Exchange-traded interest rate (Treasury and swap) futures are used primarily to hedge mismatches between the duration of assets in a portfolio and the duration of liabilities supported by those assets, to hedge against changes in value of securities the Company owns or anticipates acquiring and to hedge against changes in interest rates on anticipated liability issuances by replicating Treasury or swap curve performance. The Company utilizes exchange-traded interest rate futures in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

The Company writes covered call options on its portfolio of U.S. Treasuries as an income generation strategy. In a covered call transaction, the Company receives a premium at the inception of the contract in exchange for giving the derivative counterparty the right to purchase the referenced security from the Company at a predetermined price. The call option is “covered” because the Company owns the referenced security over the term of the option. Covered call options are included in interest rate options. The Company utilizes covered call options in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

The Company enters into interest rate forwards to buy and sell securities. The price is agreed upon at the time of the contract and payment for such a contract is made at a specified future date. The Company utilizes interest rate forwards in cash flow and non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Foreign currency derivatives, including foreign currency swaps and foreign currency forwards, are used by the Company to reduce the risk from fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates associated with its assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies.

In a foreign currency swap transaction, the Company agrees with another party to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between one currency and another at a fixed exchange rate, generally set at inception, calculated by reference to an agreed upon principal amount. The principal amount of each currency is exchanged at the inception and termination of the currency swap by each party. The Company utilizes foreign currency swaps in fair value, cash flow and non-qualifying hedging relationships.

In a foreign currency forward transaction, the Company agrees with another party to deliver a specified amount of an identified currency at a specified future date. The price is agreed upon at the time of the contract and payment for such a contract is made in a different currency at the specified future date. The Company utilizes foreign currency forwards in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Swap spreadlocks are used by the Company to hedge invested assets on an economic basis against the risk of changes in credit spreads. Swap spreadlocks are forward transactions between two parties whose underlying reference index is a forward starting interest rate swap where the Company agrees to pay a coupon based on a predetermined reference swap spread in exchange for receiving a coupon based on a floating rate. The Company has the option to cash settle with the counterparty in lieu of maintaining the swap after the effective date. The Company utilizes swap spreadlocks in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

48

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Certain credit default swaps are used by the Company to hedge against credit-related changes in the value of its investments and to diversify its credit risk exposure in certain portfolios. In a credit default swap transaction, the Company agrees with another party, at specified intervals, to pay a premium to hedge credit risk. If a credit event, as defined by the contract, occurs, generally the contract will require the swap to be settled gross by the delivery of par quantities of the referenced investment equal to the specified swap notional in exchange for the payment of cash amounts by the counterparty equal to the par value of the investment surrendered. The Company utilizes credit default swaps in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Credit default swaps are also used to synthetically create investments that are either more expensive to acquire or otherwise unavailable in the cash markets. These transactions are a combination of a derivative and a cash instrument such as a U.S. Treasury or agency security. These credit default swaps are not designated as hedging instruments.

The Company enters into forwards to lock in the price to be paid for forward purchases of certain securities. The price is agreed upon at the time of the contract and payment for the contract is made at a specified future date. When the primary purpose of entering into these transactions is to hedge against the risk of changes in purchase price due to changes in credit spreads, the Company designates these as credit forwards. The Company utilizes credit forwards in cash flow hedging relationships.

In exchange-traded equity futures transactions, the Company agrees to purchase or sell a specified number of contracts, the value of which is determined by the different classes of equity securities, and to post variation margin on a daily basis in an amount equal to the difference in the daily market values of those contracts. The Company enters into exchange-traded futures with regulated futures commission merchants that are members of the exchange. Exchange-traded equity futures are used primarily to hedge liabilities embedded in certain variable annuity products offered by the Company. The Company utilizes exchange-traded equity futures in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Equity index options are used by the Company primarily to hedge minimum guarantees embedded in certain variable annuity products offered by the Company. To hedge against adverse changes in equity indices, the Company enters into contracts to sell the equity index within a limited time at a contracted price. The contracts will be net settled in cash based on differentials in the indices at the time of exercise and the strike price. In certain instances, the Company may enter into a combination of transactions to hedge adverse changes in equity indices within a pre-determined range through the purchase and sale of options. Equity index options are included in equity options in the preceding table. The Company utilizes equity index options in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Equity variance swaps are used by the Company primarily to hedge minimum guarantees embedded in certain variable annuity products offered by the Company. In an equity variance swap, the Company agrees with another party to exchange amounts in the future, based on changes in equity volatility over a defined period. Equity variance swaps are included in variance swaps in the preceding table. The Company utilizes equity variance swaps in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

Total rate of return swaps (“TRRs”) are swaps whereby the Company agrees with another party to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between the economic risk and reward of an asset or a market index and the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), calculated by reference to an agreed notional principal amount. No cash is exchanged at the outset of the contract. Cash is paid and received over the life of the contract based on the terms of the swap. These transactions are entered into pursuant to master agreements that provide for a single net payment to be made by the counterparty at each due date. The Company uses TRRs to hedge its equity market guarantees in certain of its insurance products. TRRs can be used as hedges or to synthetically create investments. The Company utilizes TRRs in non-qualifying hedging relationships.

49

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Hedging

The following table presents the gross notional amount and estimated fair value of derivatives designated as hedging instruments by type of hedge designation at:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
	Notional		Estimated Fair Value				Notional		Estimated Fair Value
Derivatives Designated as Hedging Instruments	Amount		Assets		Liabilities		Amount		Assets		Liabilities
					(In millions)
Fair value hedges:
Foreign currency swaps	$	598	$	212	$	19	$	787	$	334	$	18
Interest rate swaps		322		33		7		193		11		15
Subtotal		920		245		26		980		345		33
Cash flow hedges:
Foreign currency swaps		445		41		8		295		15		11
Interest rate swaps		395		93		—		575		1		45
Interest rate forwards		665		128		—		695		—		71
Subtotal		1,505		262		8		1,565		16		127
Total qualifying hedges	$	2,425	$	507	$	34	$	2,545	$	361	$	160

The following table presents the gross notional amount and estimated fair value of derivatives that were not designated or do not qualify as hedging instruments by derivative type at:

	September 30, 2011						December 31, 2010
Derivatives Not Designated or Not	Notional		Estimated Fair Value				Notional		Estimated Fair Value
Qualifying as Hedging Instruments	Amount		Assets		Liabilities		Amount		Assets		Liabilities
					(In millions)
Interest rate swaps	$	9,821	$	1,175	$	378	$	8,334	$	646	$	192
Interest rate floors		7,986		324		151		7,986		127		62
Interest rate caps		7,658		13		—		7,158		29		1
Interest rate futures		3,659		7		1		1,966		5		7
Foreign currency swaps		968		101		32		1,479		236		39
Foreign currency forwards		149		6		1		151		4		1
Credit default swaps		2,448		15		45		1,324		15		22
Equity futures		574		15		—		93		—		—
Equity options		2,125		441		—		733		77		—
Variance swaps		2,151		71		5		1,081		20		8
Total rate of return swaps		127		—		—		—		—		—
Total non-designated or non-qualifying derivatives	$	37,666	$	2,168	$	613	$	30,305	$	1,159	$	332

50

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Net Derivative Gains (Losses)

The components of net derivative gains (losses) were as follows:

	Three Months					Nine Months
	Ended					Ended
	September 30,					September 30,
	2011		2010			2011		2010
			(In millions)
Derivatives and hedging gains (losses) (1)	$	839	$	(44	)	$	745	$	90
Embedded derivatives		43		81			114		202
Total net derivative gains (losses)	$	882	$	37		$	859	$	292

(1) Includes foreign currency transaction gains (losses) on hedged items in cash flow and non-qualifying hedge relationships, which are not presented elsewhere in this note.

The following table presents the settlement payments recorded in income for the:

	Three Months				Nine Months
	Ended				Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
			(In millions)
Qualifying hedges:
Net investment income	$	—	$	—	$	1	$	1
Interest credited to policyholder account balances		9		11		32		27
Non-qualifying hedges:
Net derivative gains (losses)		46		7		63		—
Total	$	55	$	18	$	96	$	28

Fair Value Hedges

The Company designates and accounts for the following as fair value hedges when they have met the requirements of fair value hedging: (i) interest rate swaps to convert fixed rate investments to floating rate investments; (ii) interest rate swaps to convert fixed rate liabilities to floating rate liabilities; and (iii) foreign currency swaps to hedge the foreign currency fair value exposure of foreign currency denominated liabilities.

51

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The Company recognizes gains and losses on derivatives and the related hedged items in fair value hedges within net derivative gains (losses). The following table represents the amount of such net derivative gains (losses):

		Net Derivative			Net Derivative			Ineffectiveness
		Gains (Losses)			Gains (Losses)			Recognized in
Derivatives in Fair Value	Hedged Items in Fair Value	Recognized			Recognized for			Net Derivative
Hedging Relationships	Hedging Relationships	for Derivatives			Hedged Items			Gains (Losses)
		(In millions)
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Interest rate swaps:	Fixed maturity securities	$	(4	)	$	4		$	—
	Policyholder account balances (1)		34			(35	)		(1	)
Foreign currency swaps:	Foreign-denominated policyholder account balances (2)		(63	)		54			(9	)
Total		$	(33	)	$	23		$	(10	)
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Interest rate swaps:	Fixed maturity securities	$	—		$	—		$	—
	Policyholder account balances (1)		—			(5	)		(5	)
Foreign currency swaps:	Foreign-denominated policyholder account balances (2)		93			(92	)		1
Total		$	93		$	(97	)	$	(4	)
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Interest rate swaps:	Fixed maturity securities	$	(7	)	$	6		$	(1	)
	Policyholder account balances (1)		34			(36	)		(2	)
Foreign currency swaps:	Foreign-denominated policyholder account balances (2)		(27	)		11			(16	)
Total		$	—		$	(19	)	$	(19	)
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Interest rate swaps:	Fixed maturity securities	$	(1	)	$	1		$	—
	Policyholder account balances (1)		5			(10	)		(5	)
Foreign currency swaps:	Foreign-denominated policyholder account balances (2)		(24	)		7			(17	)
Total		$	(20	)	$	(2	)	$	(22	)

(1)	Fixed rate liabilities.
(2)	Fixed rate or floating rate liabilities.

All components of each derivative’s gain or loss were included in the assessment of hedge effectiveness.

Cash Flow Hedges

The Company designates and accounts for the following as cash flow hedges when they have met the requirements of cash flow hedging: (i) foreign currency swaps to hedge the foreign currency cash flow exposure of foreign currency denominated investments and liabilities; (ii) interest rate forwards and credit forwards to lock in the price to be paid for forward purchases of investments; (iii) interest rate swaps and interest rate forwards to hedge

52

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

the forecasted purchases of fixed-rate investments; and (iv) interest rate swaps to convert floating rate investments to fixed rate investments.

In certain instances, the Company discontinued cash flow hedge accounting because the forecasted transactions did not occur on the anticipated date or within two months of that date. There were no amounts reclassified into net derivative gains (losses) for the three months ended September 30, 2011 related to such discontinued cash flow hedges. The net amount reclassified into net derivative gains (losses) for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 related to such discontinued cash flow hedges was $1 million. For the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, there were no instances in which the Company discontinued cash flow hedge accounting because the forecasted transactions did not occur on the anticipated date or within two months of that date.

At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the maximum length of time over which the Company was hedging its exposure to variability in future cash flows for forecasted transactions did not exceed six years.

The following table presents the components of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), before income tax, related to cash flow hedges:

	Three Months						Nine Months
	Ended						Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
				(In millions)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), balance at beginning of period	$	(99	)	$	23		$	(109	)	$	(1	)
Gains (losses) deferred in other comprehensive income (loss) on the effective portion of cash flow hedges		334			29			348			49
Amounts reclassified to net derivative gains (losses)		3			(4	)		(1	)		—
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), balance at end of period	$	238		$	48		$	238		$	48

At September 30, 2011, insignificant amounts of deferred net gains (losses) on derivatives in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) were expected to be reclassified to earnings within the next 12 months.

53

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The following table presents the effects of derivatives in cash flow hedging relationships on the interim condensed consolidated statements of operations and the interim condensed consolidated statements of stockholders’ equity:

	Amount of Gains			Amount and Location
	(Losses) Deferred			of Gains (Losses)			Amount and Location
	in Accumulated Other			Reclassified from			of Gains (Losses)
	Comprehensive Income			Accumulated Other Comprehensive			Recognized in Income (Loss)
	(Loss) on Derivatives			Income (Loss) into Income (Loss)			on Derivatives
							(Ineffective Portion and
							Amount Excluded from
	(Effective Portion)			(Effective Portion)			Effectiveness Testing)
Derivatives in Cash Flow				Net Derivative			Net Derivative
Hedging Relationships				Gains (Losses)			Gains (Losses)
	(In millions)
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Interest rate swaps	$	119		$	—		$	—
Foreign currency swaps		31			(3	)		—
Interest rate forwards		184			—			12
Credit forwards		—			—			—
Total	$	334		$	(3	)	$	12
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Interest rate swaps	$	31		$	—		$	—
Foreign currency swaps		(9	)		4			—
Interest rate forwards		1			—			—
Credit forwards		6			—			—
Total	$	29		$	4		$	—
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Interest rate swaps	$	123		$	1		$	—
Foreign currency swaps		30			(1	)		—
Interest rate forwards		195			—			4
Credit forwards		—			1			—
Total	$	348		$	1		$	4
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Interest rate swaps	$	32		$	—		$	—
Foreign currency swaps		1			(2	)		—
Interest rate forwards		1			2			—
Credit forwards		15			—			—
Total	$	49		$	—		$	—

All components of each derivative’s gain or loss were included in the assessment of hedge effectiveness.

Non-Qualifying Derivatives and Derivatives for Purposes Other Than Hedging

The Company enters into the following derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting or for purposes other than hedging: (i) interest rate swaps, implied volatility swaps, caps and floors and interest rate futures to

54

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

economically hedge its exposure to interest rates; (ii) foreign currency forwards and swaps to economically hedge its exposure to adverse movements in exchange rates; (iii) credit default swaps to economically hedge exposure to adverse movements in credit; (iv) equity futures, equity index options, interest rate futures, TRRs and equity variance swaps to economically hedge liabilities embedded in certain variable annuity products; (v) swap spreadlocks to economically hedge invested assets against the risk of changes in credit spreads; (vi) credit default swaps to synthetically create investments; (vii) interest rate forwards to buy and sell securities to economically hedge its exposure to interest rates; (viii) basis swaps to better match the cash flows of assets and related liabilities; (ix) inflation swaps to reduce risk generated from inflation-indexed liabilities; (x) covered call options for income generation; and (xi) equity options to economically hedge certain invested assets against adverse changes in equity indices.

The following tables present the amount and location of gains (losses) recognized in income for derivatives that were not designated or qualifying as hedging instruments:

	Net			Net			Policyholder
	Derivative			Investment			Benefits and
	Gains (Losses)			Income (1)			Claims (2)
	(In millions)
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Interest rate swaps	$	366		$	—		$	—
Interest rate floors		106			—			—
Interest rate caps		(21	)		—			—
Interest rate futures		80			—			—
Equity futures		7			—			20
Foreign currency swaps		28			—			—
Foreign currency forwards		13			—			—
Equity options		136			2			—
Interest rate forwards		3			—			—
Variance swaps		66			—			—
Credit default swaps		(20	)		—			—
Total	$	764		$	2		$	20
For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Interest rate swaps	$	36		$	—		$	—
Interest rate floors		36			—			—
Interest rate caps		(4	)		—			—
Interest rate futures		(8	)		—			—
Equity futures		(12	)		—			—
Foreign currency swaps		54			—			—
Foreign currency forwards		(13	)		—			—
Equity options		(29	)		(8	)		—
Interest rate options		—			—			—
Interest rate forwards		1			—			—
Variance swaps		(15	)		—			—
Credit default swaps		—			—			—
Total	$	46		$	(8	)	$	—

55

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Net			Net			Policyholder
	Derivative			Investment			Benefits and
	Gains (Losses)			Income (1)			Claims (2)
	(In millions)
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Interest rate swaps	$	370		$	—		$	—
Interest rate floors		107			—			—
Interest rate caps		(38	)		—			—
Interest rate futures		68			—			—
Equity futures		11			—			19
Foreign currency swaps		30			—			—
Foreign currency forwards		(3	)		—			—
Equity options		115			—			—
Interest rate forwards		3			—			—
Variance swaps		56			—			—
Credit default swaps		(18	)		—			—
Total	$	701		$	—		$	19
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Interest rate swaps	$	99		$	—		$	—
Interest rate floors		83			—			—
Interest rate caps		(18	)		—			—
Interest rate futures		(36	)		—			—
Equity futures		(13	)		—			—
Foreign currency swaps		(3	)		—			—
Foreign currency forwards		—			—			—
Equity options		14			(4	)		—
Interest rate options		(3	)		—			—
Interest rate forwards		1			—			—
Variance swaps		13			—			—
Credit default swaps		1			—			—
Total	$	138		$	(4	)	$	—

(1)	Changes in estimated fair value related to economic hedges of equity method investments in joint ventures.
(2)	Changes in estimated fair value related to economic hedges of variable annuity guarantees included in future policy benefits.

Credit Derivatives

In connection with synthetically created investment transactions, the Company writes credit default swaps for which it receives a premium to insure credit risk. Such credit derivatives are included within the non-qualifying derivatives and derivatives for purposes other than hedging table. If a credit event occurs, as defined by the contract, generally the contract will require the Company to pay the counterparty the specified swap notional amount in exchange for the delivery of par quantities of the referenced credit obligation. The Company’s maximum amount at risk, assuming the value of all referenced credit obligations is zero, was $2,109 million and $912 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The Company can terminate these contracts at any time through cash settlement with the counterparty at an amount equal to the then current fair value of the credit default

56

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

swaps. At September 30, 2011, the Company would have paid $32 million to terminate all of these contracts, and at December 31, 2010, the Company would have received $13 million to terminate all of these contracts.

The following table presents the estimated fair value, maximum amount of future payments and weighted average years to maturity of written credit default swaps at:

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
				Maximum						Maximum
	Estimated			Amount				Estimated		Amount
	Fair Value			of Future		Weighted		Fair Value		of Future		Weighted
	of Credit			Payments under		Average		of Credit		Payments under		Average
Rating Agency Designation of Referenced	Default			Credit Default		Years to		Default		Credit Default		Years to
Credit Obligations (1)	Swaps			Swaps (2)		Maturity (3)		Swaps		Swaps (2)		Maturity (3)
						(In millions)
Aaa/Aa/A
Single name credit default swaps (corporate)	$	—		$	185		4.4	$	1	$	45		3.6
Credit default swaps referencing indices		(7	)		661		3.3		11		679		3.7
Subtotal		(7	)		846		3.6		12		724		3.7
Baa
Single name credit default swaps (corporate)		(10	)		470		4.8		—		5		3.0
Credit default swaps referencing indices		(15	)		793		5.1		1		183		5.0
Subtotal		(25	)		1,263		5.0		1		188		5.0
Total	$	(32	)	$	2,109		4.4	$	13	$	912		4.0

(1)	The rating agency designations are based on availability and the midpoint of the applicable ratings among Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. If no rating is available from a rating agency, then an internally developed rating is used.
(2)	Assumes the value of the referenced credit obligations is zero.
(3)	The weighted average years to maturity of the credit default swaps is calculated based on weighted average notional amounts.

Credit Risk on Freestanding Derivatives

The Company may be exposed to credit-related losses in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to derivative financial instruments. Generally, the current credit exposure of the Company’s derivative contracts is limited to the net positive estimated fair value of derivative contracts at the reporting date after taking into consideration the existence of netting agreements and any collateral received pursuant to credit support annexes.

The Company manages its credit risk related to OTC derivatives by entering into transactions with creditworthy counterparties, maintaining collateral arrangements and through the use of master agreements that provide for a single net payment to be made by one counterparty to another at each due date and upon termination. Because exchange-traded futures are effected through regulated exchanges, and positions are marked to market on a daily basis, the Company has minimal exposure to credit-related losses in the event of nonperformance by counterparties to such derivative instruments. See Note 4 for a description of the impact of credit risk on the valuation of derivative instruments.

The Company enters into various collateral arrangements which require both the pledging and accepting of collateral in connection with its derivative instruments. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company was obligated to return cash collateral under its control of $1,624 million and $965 million, respectively. This unrestricted cash collateral is included in cash and cash equivalents or in short-term investments and the obligation to return it is included in payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions in the consolidated balance sheets. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company had also accepted collateral consisting of various securities with a fair market value of $88 million and $3 million, respectively, which

57

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

were held in separate custodial accounts. The Company is permitted by contract to sell or repledge this collateral, but at September 30, 2011, none of the collateral had been sold or repledged.

The Company’s collateral arrangements for its OTC derivatives generally require the counterparty in a net liability position, after considering the effect of netting agreements, to pledge collateral when the fair value of that counterparty’s derivatives reaches a pre-determined threshold. Certain of these arrangements also include credit-contingent provisions that provide for a reduction of these thresholds (on a sliding scale that converges toward zero) in the event of downgrades in the credit ratings of the Companyand/or the counterparty. In addition, certain of the Company’s netting agreements for derivative instruments contain provisions that require the Company to maintain a specific investment grade credit rating from at least one of the major credit rating agencies. If the Company’s credit ratings were to fall below that specific investment grade credit rating, it would be in violation of these provisions, and the counterparties to the derivative instruments could request immediate payment or demand immediate and ongoing full overnight collateralization on derivative instruments that are in a net liability position after considering the effect of netting agreements.

The following table presents the estimated fair value of the Company’s OTC derivatives that are in a net liability position after considering the effect of netting agreements, together with the estimated fair value and balance sheet location of the collateral pledged. The table also presents the incremental collateral that the Company would be required to provide if there was a one notch downgrade in the Company’s credit rating at the reporting date or if the Company’s credit rating sustained a downgrade to a level that triggered full overnight collateralization or termination of the derivative position at the reporting date. Derivatives that are not subject to collateral agreements are not included in the scope of this table.

			Estimated
			Fair Value of
			Collateral		Fair Value of Incremental Collateral
			Provided: (2)		Provided Upon:
							Downgrade in the
					One Notch		Company’s Credit Rating
					Downgrade		to a Level that Triggers
	Estimated				in the		Full Overnight
	Fair Value (1) of				Company’s		Collateralization or
	Derivatives in Net		Fixed Maturity		Credit		Termination of
	Liability Position		Securities		Rating		the Derivative Position
	(In millions)
September 30, 2011	$	25	$	11	$	1	$	16
December 31, 2010	$	96	$	58	$	11	$	62

(1)	After taking into consideration the existence of netting agreements.
(2)	Included in fixed maturity securities in the consolidated balance sheets. The counterparties are permitted by contract to sell or repledge this collateral. At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company did not provide any cash collateral.

Without considering the effect of netting agreements, the estimated fair value of the Company’s OTC derivatives with credit-contingent provisions that were in a gross liability position at September 30, 2011 was $132 million. At September 30, 2011, the Company provided securities collateral of $11 million in connection with these derivatives. In the unlikely event that both: (i) the Company’s credit rating was downgraded to a level that triggers full overnight collateralization or termination of all derivative positions; and (ii) the Company’s netting agreements were deemed to be legally unenforceable, then the additional collateral that the Company would be required to provide to its counterparties in connection with its derivatives in a gross liability position at September 30, 2011 would be $121 million. This amount does not consider gross derivative assets of $107 million for which the Company has the contractual right of offset.

The Company also has exchange-traded futures, which may require the pledging of collateral. At both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company did not pledge any securities collateral for exchange-traded futures. At

58

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company provided cash collateral for exchange-traded futures of $101 million and $25 million, respectively, which is included in premiums, reinsurance and other receivables.

Embedded Derivatives

The Company has certain embedded derivatives that are required to be separated from their host contracts and accounted for as derivatives. These host contracts principally include: variable annuities with guaranteed minimum benefits, including guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits (“GMWBs”), guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits (“GMABs”) and certain guaranteed minimum income benefits (“GMIBs”); affiliated ceded reinsurance contracts of guaranteed minimum benefits related to GMWBs, GMABs and certain GMIBs; affiliated assumed reinsurance contracts of guaranteed minimum benefits related to GMWBs and certain GMIBs; ceded reinsurance written on a funds withheld basis; and options embedded in debt or equity securities.

The following table presents the estimated fair value of the Company’s embedded derivatives at:

	September 30, 2011			December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts:
Ceded guaranteed minimum benefits	$	3,032		$	936
Options embedded in debt or equity securities		(1	)		(2	)
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts	$	3,031		$	934
Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts:
Direct guaranteed minimum benefits	$	1,789		$	254
Assumed guaranteed minimum benefits		6			—
Funds withheld on ceded reinsurance		394			5
Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts	$	2,189		$	259

The following table presents changes in estimated fair value related to embedded derivatives:

	Three Months				Nine Months
	Ended				Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
			(In millions)
Net derivative gains (losses) (1), (2)	$	43	$	81	$	114	$	202

(1)

The valuation of direct and assumed guaranteed minimum benefits includes an adjustment for nonperformance risk. The amounts included in net derivative gains (losses), in connection with this adjustment, were $419 million and $391 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and ($86) million and ($32) million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. In addition, the valuation of ceded guaranteed minimum benefits includes an adjustment for nonperformance risk. The amounts included in net derivative gains (losses), in connection with this adjustment, were ($542) million and ($519) million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and $112 million and $91 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

(2)

See Note 9 for discussion of affiliated net derivative gains (losses) included in the table above.

4.   Fair Value

Considerable judgment is often required in interpreting market data to develop estimates of fair value, and the use of different assumptions or valuation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts.

59

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Assets and Liabilities Measured at Fair Value

Recurring Fair Value Measurements

The assets and liabilities measured at estimated fair value on a recurring basis, including those items for which the Company has elected the FVO, were determined as described below. These estimated fair values and their corresponding placement in the fair value hierarchy are summarized as follows:

	September 30, 2011
	Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
	Quoted Prices in
	Active Markets for		Significant Other		Significant		Total
	Identical Assets		Observable		Unobservable		Estimated
	and Liabilities		Inputs		Inputs		Fair
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)		(Level 3)		Value
	(In millions)
Assets:
Fixed maturity securities:
U.S. corporate securities	$	—	$	15,824	$	1,555	$	17,379
U.S. Treasury and agency securities		4,987		3,587		—		8,574
Foreign corporate securities		—		7,520		615		8,135
RMBS		—		6,525		18		6,543
CMBS		—		2,076		158		2,234
State and political subdivision securities		—		2,045		23		2,068
ABS		—		1,498		519		2,017
Foreign government securities		—		1,130		2		1,132
Total fixed maturity securities		4,987		40,205		2,890		48,082
Equity securities:
Common stock		31		74		21		126
Non-redeemable preferred stock		—		33		93		126
Total equity securities		31		107		114		252
Other securities:
FVO general account securities		—		47		—		47
FVO contractholder-directed unit-linked investments		3,110		—		—		3,110
Total other securities		3,110		47		—		3,157
Short-term investments (1)		744		2,158		55		2,957
Mortgage loans held by CSEs		—		3,227		—		3,227
Derivative assets: (2)
Interest rate contracts		7		1,603		163		1,773
Foreign currency contracts		—		360		—		360
Credit contracts		—		13		2		15
Equity market contracts		15		440		72		527
Total derivative assets		22		2,416		237		2,675
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts (3)		—		—		3,032		3,032
Separate account assets (4)		178		64,764		131		65,073
Total assets	$	9,072	$	112,924	$	6,459	$	128,455
Liabilities:
Derivative liabilities: (2)
Interest rate contracts	$	1	$	528	$	8	$	537
Foreign currency contracts		—		60		—		60
Credit contracts		—		35		10		45
Equity market contracts		—		—		5		5
Total derivative liabilities		1		623		23		647
Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts (3)		—		—		2,189		2,189
Long-term debt of CSEs		—		3,158		—		3,158
Total liabilities	$	1	$	3,781	$	2,212	$	5,994

60

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	December 31, 2010
	Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
	Quoted Prices in
	Active Markets for		Significant Other		Significant		Total
	Identical Assets		Observable		Unobservable		Estimated
	and Liabilities		Inputs		Inputs		Fair
	(Level 1)		(Level 2)		(Level 3)		Value
	(In millions)
Assets:
Fixed maturity securities:
U.S. corporate securities	$	—	$	13,864	$	1,510	$	15,374
U.S. Treasury and agency securities		4,616		3,026		34		7,676
Foreign corporate securities		—		7,590		880		8,470
RMBS		—		6,674		35		6,709
CMBS		—		2,147		130		2,277
State and political subdivision securities		—		1,614		32		1,646
ABS		—		1,301		568		1,869
Foreign government securities		—		889		14		903
Total fixed maturity securities		4,616		37,105		3,203		44,924
Equity securities:
Common stock		43		72		22		137
Non-redeemable preferred stock		—		54		214		268
Total equity securities		43		126		236		405
Other securities:
FVO general account securities		—		7		—		7
FVO contractholder-directed unit-linked investments		2,240		—		—		2,240
Total other securities		2,240		7		—		2,247
Short-term investments (1)		390		584		173		1,147
Mortgage loans held by CSEs		—		6,840		—		6,840
Derivative assets: (2)
Interest rate contracts		5		804		10		819
Foreign currency contracts		—		589		—		589
Credit contracts		—		3		12		15
Equity market contracts		—		77		20		97
Total derivative assets		5		1,473		42		1,520
Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts (3)		—		—		936		936
Separate account assets (4)		76		61,410		133		61,619
Total assets	$	7,370	$	107,545	$	4,723	$	119,638
Liabilities:
Derivative liabilities: (2)
Interest rate contracts	$	7	$	315	$	71	$	393
Foreign currency contracts		—		69		—		69
Credit contracts		—		21		1		22
Equity market contracts		—		—		8		8
Total derivative liabilities		7		405		80		492
Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts (3)		—		—		259		259
Long-term debt of CSEs		—		6,773		—		6,773
Total liabilities	$	7	$	7,178	$	339	$	7,524

(1)	Short-term investments as presented in the tables above differ from the amounts presented in the consolidated balance sheets because certain short-term investments are not measured at estimated fair value (e.g., time deposits, etc.), and therefore are excluded from the tables presented above.
(2)	Derivative assets are presented within other invested assets in the consolidated balance sheets and derivative liabilities are presented within other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. The amounts are presented

61

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	gross in the tables above to reflect the presentation in the consolidated balance sheets, but are presented net for purposes of the rollforward in the Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) tables which follow.
(3)	Net embedded derivatives within asset host contracts are presented within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets. Net embedded derivatives within liability host contracts are presented in the consolidated balance sheets within policyholder account balances and other liabilities. At September 30, 2011, fixed maturity securities and equity securities also included embedded derivatives of $2 million and ($3) million, respectively. At December 31, 2010, fixed maturity securities and equity securities included embedded derivatives of $3 million and ($5) million, respectively.
(4)	Separate account assets are measured at estimated fair value. Investment performance related to separate account assets is fully offset by corresponding amounts credited to contractholders whose liability is reflected within separate account liabilities. Separate account liabilities are set equal to the estimated fair value of separate account assets.

See Note 2 for discussion of CSEs included in the tables above.

The methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of financial instruments are summarized as follows:

Fixed Maturity Securities, Equity Securities, Other Securities and Short-term Investments

When available, the estimated fair value of the Company’s fixed maturity securities, equity securities, other securities and short-term investments are based on quoted prices in active markets that are readily and regularly obtainable. Generally, these are the most liquid of the Company’s securities holdings and valuation of these securities does not involve management’s judgment.

When quoted prices in active markets are not available, the determination of estimated fair value is based on market standard valuation methodologies. The market standard valuation methodologies utilized include: discounted cash flow methodologies, matrix pricing or other similar techniques. The inputs in applying these market standard valuation methodologies include, but are not limited to: interest rates, credit standing of the issuer or counterparty, industry sector of the issuer, coupon rate, call provisions, sinking fund requirements, maturity and management’s assumptions regarding estimated duration, liquidity and estimated future cash flows. Accordingly, the estimated fair values are based on available market information and management’s judgments about financial instruments.

The significant inputs to the market standard valuation methodologies for certain types of securities with reasonable levels of price transparency are inputs that are observable in the market or can be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data. Such observable inputs include benchmarking prices for similar assets in active markets, quoted prices in markets that are not active and observable yields and spreads in the market.

When observable inputs are not available, the market standard valuation methodologies for determining the estimated fair value of certain types of securities that trade infrequently, and therefore have little or no price transparency, rely on inputs that are significant to the estimated fair value that are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data. These unobservable inputs can be based in large part on management’s judgment or estimation and cannot be supported by reference to market activity. Even though unobservable, these inputs are assumed to be consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing such securities and are considered appropriate given the circumstances.

The use of different methodologies, assumptions and inputs may have a material effect on the estimated fair values of the Company’s securities holdings.

62

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Mortgage Loans Held by CSEs

The Company consolidates certain securitization entities that hold commercial mortgage loans. These commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs, for which the Company has elected the FVO, are presented within mortgage loans in the consolidated balance sheets. See “— Valuation Techniques and Inputs by Level Within the Three-Level Fair Value Hierarchy by Major Classes of Assets and Liabilities” below for a discussion of the methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments.

Derivatives

The estimated fair value of derivatives is determined through the use of quoted market prices for exchange-traded derivatives or through the use of pricing models for OTC derivatives. The determination of estimated fair value, when quoted market values are not available, is based on market standard valuation methodologies and inputs that are assumed to be consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing the instruments. Derivative valuations can be affected by changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, financial indices, credit spreads, default risk (including the counterparties to the contract), volatility, liquidity and changes in estimates and assumptions used in the pricing models.

The significant inputs to the pricing models for most OTC derivatives are inputs that are observable in the market or can be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data. Significant inputs that are observable generally include: interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, interest rate curves, credit curves and volatility. However, certain OTC derivatives may rely on inputs that are significant to the estimated fair value that are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data. Significant inputs that are unobservable generally include: independent broker quotes, credit correlation assumptions, references to emerging market currencies and inputs that are outside the observable portion of the interest rate curve, credit curve, volatility or other relevant market measure. These unobservable inputs may involve significant management judgment or estimation. Even though unobservable, these inputs are based on assumptions deemed appropriate given the circumstances and are assumed to be consistent with what other market participants would use when pricing such instruments.

The credit risk of both the counterparty and the Company are considered in determining the estimated fair value for all OTC derivatives, and any potential credit adjustment is based on the net exposure by counterparty after taking into account the effects of netting agreements and collateral arrangements. The Company values its derivative positions using the standard swap curve which includes a spread to the risk free rate. This credit spread is appropriate for those parties that execute trades at pricing levels consistent with the standard swap curve. As the Company and its significant derivative counterparties consistently execute trades at such pricing levels, additional credit risk adjustments are not currently required in the valuation process. The Company’s ability to consistently execute at such pricing levels is in part due to the netting agreements and collateral arrangements that are in place with all of its significant derivative counterparties. The evaluation of the requirement to make additional credit risk adjustments is performed by the Company each reporting period.

Most inputs for OTC derivatives are mid market inputs but, in certain cases, bid level inputs are used when they are deemed more representative of exit value. Market liquidity, as well as the use of different methodologies, assumptions and inputs, may have a material effect on the estimated fair values of the Company’s derivatives and could materially affect net income.

Net Embedded Derivatives Within Asset and Liability Host Contracts

Embedded derivatives principally include certain direct, assumed and ceded variable annuity guarantees and embedded derivatives related to funds withheld on ceded reinsurance. Embedded derivatives are recorded at estimated fair value with changes in estimated fair value reported in net income.

63

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The Company issues certain variable annuity products with guaranteed minimum benefits. GMWBs, GMABs and certain GMIBs are embedded derivatives, which are measured at estimated fair value separately from the host variable annuity contract, with changes in estimated fair value reported in net derivative gains (losses). These embedded derivatives are classified within policyholder account balances in the consolidated balance sheets.

The fair value of these guarantees is estimated using the present value of future benefits minus the present value of future fees using actuarial and capital market assumptions related to the projected cash flows over the expected lives of the contracts. A risk neutral valuation methodology is used under which the cash flows from the guarantees are projected under multiple capital market scenarios using observable risk free rates, currency exchange rates and observable and estimated implied volatilities.

The valuation of these guarantee liabilities includes adjustments for nonperformance risk and for a risk margin related to non-capital market inputs.

The nonperformance adjustment is determined by taking into consideration publicly available information relating to spreads in the secondary market for MetLife’s debt, including related credit default swaps. These observable spreads are then adjusted, as necessary, to reflect the priority of these liabilities and the claims paying ability of the issuing insurance subsidiaries compared to MetLife.

Risk margins are established to capture the non-capital market risks of the instrument which represent the additional compensation a market participant would require to assume the risks related to the uncertainties of such actuarial assumptions as annuitization, premium persistency, partial withdrawal and surrenders. The establishment of risk margins requires the use of significant management judgment, including assumptions of the amount and cost of capital needed to cover the guarantees. These guarantees may be more costly than expected in volatile or declining equity markets. Market conditions including, but not limited to, changes in interest rates, equity indices, market volatility and foreign currency exchange rates; changes in nonperformance risk; and variations in actuarial assumptions regarding policyholder behavior, mortality and risk margins related to non-capital market inputs may result in significant fluctuations in the estimated fair value of the guarantees that could materially affect net income.

The Company assumed, from an affiliated insurance company, the risk associated with certain GMIBs and GMWBs. These embedded derivatives are included in other policy-related balances in the consolidated balance sheets with changes in estimated fair value reported in net derivative gains (losses). The value of the embedded derivatives on these assumed risks is determined using a methodology consistent with that described previously for the guarantees directly written by the Company.

The Company ceded, to an affiliated reinsurance company, the risk associated with certain of the GMIBs, GMABs and GMWBs described above that are also accounted for as embedded derivatives. In addition to ceding risks associated with guarantees that are accounted for as embedded derivatives, the Company also cedes, to the same affiliated reinsurance company, certain directly written GMIBs that are accounted for as insurance (i.e., not as embedded derivatives), but where the reinsurance contract contains an embedded derivative. These embedded derivatives are included within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets with changes in estimated fair value reported in net derivative gains (losses). The value of the embedded derivatives on these ceded risks is determined using a methodology consistent with that described previously for the guarantees directly written by the Company. Because the direct guarantee is not accounted for at fair value, significant fluctuations in net income may occur as the change in fair value of the embedded derivative on the ceded risk is being recorded in net income without a corresponding and offsetting change in fair value of the direct guarantee.

The estimated fair value of the embedded derivatives within funds withheld related to certain ceded reinsurance is determined based on the change in estimated fair value of the underlying assets held by the Company in a reference portfolio backing the funds withheld liability. The estimated fair value of the underlying assets is determined as previously described in “— Fixed Maturity Securities, Equity Securities, Other Securities and Short-term Investments.” The estimated fair value of these embedded derivatives is included, along with their

64

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

funds withheld hosts, in other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets with changes in estimated fair value recorded in net derivative gains (losses). Changes in the credit spreads on the underlying assets, interest rates and market volatility may result in significant fluctuations in the estimated fair value of these embedded derivatives that could materially affect net income.

Separate Account Assets

Separate account assets are carried at estimated fair value and reported as a summarized total on the consolidated balance sheets. The estimated fair value of separate account assets is based on the estimated fair value of the underlying assets owned by the separate account. Assets within the Company’s separate accounts include: mutual funds, fixed maturity securities, equity securities, derivatives, other limited partnership interests, short-term investments and cash and cash equivalents. See “— Valuation Techniques and Inputs by Level Within the Three-Level Fair Value Hierarchy by Major Classes of Assets and Liabilities” below for a discussion of the methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments.

Long-term Debt of CSEs

The Company has elected the FVO for the long-term debt of CSEs, which are carried at estimated fair value. See “— Valuation Techniques and Inputs by Level Within the Three-Level Fair Value Hierarchy by Major Classes of Assets and Liabilities” below for a discussion of the methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of these financial instruments.

Valuation Techniques and Inputs by Level Within the Three-Level Fair Value Hierarchy by Major Classes of Assets and Liabilities

A description of the significant valuation techniques and inputs to the determination of estimated fair value for the more significant asset and liability classes measured at fair value on a recurring basis is as follows:

The Company determines the estimated fair value of its investments using primarily the market approach and the income approach. The use of quoted prices for identical assets and matrix pricing or other similar techniques are examples of market approaches, while the use of discounted cash flow methodologies is an example of the income approach. The Company attempts to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs in selecting whether the market or income approach is used.

While certain investments have been classified as Level 1 from the use of unadjusted quoted prices for identical investments supported by high volumes of trading activity and narrow bid/ask spreads, most investments have been classified as Level 2 because the significant inputs used to measure the fair value on a recurring basis of the same or similar investment are market observable or can be corroborated using market observable information for the full term of the investment. Level 3 investments include those where estimated fair values are based on significant unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and may reflect management’s own assumptions about what factors market participants would use in pricing these investments.

Level 1 Measurements:

Fixed Maturity Securities, Equity Securities, Other Securities and Short-term Investments

These securities are comprised of U.S. Treasury securities, exchange traded common stock, exchange traded registered mutual fund interests included in other securities and short-term money market securities, including U.S. Treasury bills. Valuation of these securities is based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are readily and regularly available. Contractholder-directed unit-linked investments reported within other securities include certain registered mutual fund interests priced using daily net asset value (“NAV”) provided by the fund managers.

65

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Derivative Assets and Derivative Liabilities

These assets and liabilities are comprised of exchange-traded derivatives. Valuation of these assets and liabilities is based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are readily and regularly available.

Separate Account Assets

These assets are comprised of (i) securities that are similar in nature to the fixed maturity securities, equity securities and short-term investments referred to above; and (ii) certain exchange-traded derivatives, including financial futures. Valuation of these assets is based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are readily and regularly available.

Level 2 Measurements:

Fixed Maturity Securities, Equity Securities, Other Securities and Short-term Investments

This level includes fixed maturity securities and equity securities priced principally by independent pricing services using observable inputs. Other securities and short-term investments within this level are of a similar nature and class to the Level 2 securities described below.

U.S. corporate and foreign corporate securities.  These securities are principally valued using the market and income approaches. Valuation is based primarily on quoted prices in markets that are not active, or using matrix pricing or other similar techniques that use standard market observable inputs such as benchmark yields, spreads off benchmark yields, new issuances, issuer rating, duration, and trades of identical or comparable securities. Investment grade privately placed securities are valued using discounted cash flow methodologies using standard market observable inputs, and inputs derived from, or corroborated by, market observable data including market yield curve, duration, call provisions, observable prices and spreads for similar publicly traded or privately traded issues that incorporate the credit quality and industry sector of the issuer. This level also includes certain below investment grade privately placed fixed maturity securities priced by independent pricing services that use observable inputs.

Structured securities comprised of RMBS, CMBS and ABS.  These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuation is based primarily on matrix pricing or other similar techniques using standard market inputs including spreads for actively traded securities, spreads off benchmark yields, expected prepayment speeds and volumes, current and forecasted loss severity, rating, weighted average coupon, weighted average maturity, average delinquency rates, geographic region, debt-service coverage ratios and issuance-specific information including, but not limited to: collateral type, payment terms of the underlying assets, payment priority within the tranche, structure of the security, deal performance and vintage of loans.

U.S. Treasury and agency securities.  These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuation is based primarily on quoted prices in markets that are not active, or using matrix pricing or other similar techniques using standard market observable inputs such as benchmark U.S. Treasury yield curve, the spread off the U.S. Treasury curve for the identical security and comparable securities that are actively traded.

Foreign government and state and political subdivision securities.  These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuation is based primarily on matrix pricing or other similar techniques using standard market observable inputs including benchmark U.S. Treasury or other yields, issuer ratings, broker-dealer quotes, issuer spreads and reported trades of similar securities, including those within the same sub-sector or with a similar maturity or credit rating.

Common and non-redeemable preferred stock.  These securities are principally valued using the market approach where market quotes are available but are not considered actively traded. Valuation is based principally on observable inputs including quoted prices in markets that are not considered active.

66

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Mortgage Loans Held by CSEs

These commercial mortgage loans are principally valued using the market approach. The principal market for these commercial loan portfolios is the securitization market. The Company uses the quoted securitization market price of the obligations of the CSEs to determine the estimated fair value of these commercial loan portfolios. These market prices are determined principally by independent pricing services using observable inputs.

Derivative Assets and Derivative Liabilities

This level includes all types of derivative instruments utilized by the Company with the exception of exchange-traded derivatives included within Level 1 and those derivative instruments with unobservable inputs as described in Level 3. These derivatives are principally valued using an income approach.

Interest rate contracts.

Non-option-based— Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, LIBOR basis curves and repurchase rates.

Option-based — Valuations are based on option pricing models, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, LIBOR basis curves and interest rate volatility.

Foreign currency contracts.

Non-option-based — Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, LIBOR basis curves, currency spot rates and cross currency basis curves.

Credit contracts.

Non-option-based — Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, credit curves and recovery rates.

Equity market contracts.

Non-option-based — Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, spot equity index levels and dividend yield curves.

Option-based — Valuations are based on option pricing models, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve, spot equity index levels, dividend yield curves and equity volatility.

Separate Account Assets

These assets are comprised of investments that are similar in nature to the fixed maturity securities, equity securities and short-term investments referred to above. Also included are certain mutual funds without readily determinable fair values given prices are not published publicly. Valuation of the mutual funds is based upon quoted prices or reported NAV provided by the fund managers.

Long-term Debt of CSEs

The estimated fair value of the long-term debt of the Company’s CSEs is based on quoted prices when traded as assets in active markets or, if not available, based on market standard valuation methodologies, consistent with the Company’s methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of comparable fixed maturity securities.

67

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Level 3 Measurements:

In general, investments classified within Level 3 use many of the same valuation techniques and inputs as described in Level 2 Measurements. However, if key inputs are unobservable, or if the investments are less liquid and there is very limited trading activity, the investments are generally classified as Level 3. The use of independent non-binding broker quotations to value investments generally indicates there is a lack of liquidity or a lack of transparency in the process to develop the valuation estimates generally causing these investments to be classified in Level 3.

Fixed Maturity Securities, Equity Securities and Short-term Investments

This level includes fixed maturity securities and equity securities priced principally by independent broker quotations or market standard valuation methodologies using inputs that are not market observable or cannot be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data. Short-term investments within this level are of a similar nature and class to the Level 3 securities described below; accordingly, the valuation techniques and significant market standard observable inputs used in their valuation are also similar to those described below.

U.S. corporate and foreign corporate securities.  These securities, including financial services industry hybrid securities classified within fixed maturity securities, are principally valued using the market and income approaches. Valuations are based primarily on matrix pricing or other similar techniques that utilize unobservable inputs or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data, including illiquidity premiums and spread adjustments to reflect industry trends or specific credit-related issues. Valuations may be based on independent non-binding broker quotations. Generally, below investment grade privately placed or distressed securities included in this level are valued using discounted cash flow methodologies which rely upon significant, unobservable inputs and inputs that cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data.

Structured securities comprised of RMBS, CMBS and ABS.  These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuation is based primarily on matrix pricing or other similar techniques that utilize inputs that are unobservable or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data, or are based on independent non-binding broker quotations. Below investment grade securities and ABS supported by sub-prime mortgage loans included in this level are valued based on inputs including quoted prices for identical or similar securities that are less liquid and based on lower levels of trading activity than securities classified in Level 2, and certain of these securities are valued based on independent non-binding broker quotations.

Foreign government and state and political subdivision securities.  These securities are principally valued using the market approach. Valuation is based primarily on matrix pricing or other similar techniques, however these securities are less liquid and certain of the inputs are based on very limited trading activity.

Common and non-redeemable preferred stock.  These securities, including privately held securities and financial services industry hybrid securities classified within equity securities, are principally valued using the market and income approaches. Valuations are based primarily on matrix pricing or other similar techniques using inputs such as comparable credit rating and issuance structure. Equity securities valuations determined with discounted cash flow methodologies use inputs such as earnings multiples based on comparable public companies, and industry-specific non-earnings based multiples. Certain of these securities are valued based on independent non-binding broker quotations.

Derivative Assets and Derivative Liabilities

These derivatives are principally valued using an income approach. Valuations of non-option-based derivatives utilize present value techniques, whereas valuations of option-based derivatives utilize option pricing models.

68

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

These valuation methodologies generally use the same inputs as described in the corresponding sections above for Level 2 measurements of derivatives. However, these derivatives result in Level 3 classification because one or more of the significant inputs are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data.

Interest rate contracts.

Non-option-based — Significant unobservable inputs may include the extrapolation beyond observable limits of the swap yield curve and LIBOR basis curves.

Option-based— Significant unobservable inputs may include the extrapolation beyond observable limits of the swap yield curve, LIBOR basis curves and interest rate volatility.

Foreign currency contracts.

Non-option-based— Significant unobservable inputs may include the extrapolation beyond observable limits of the swap yield curve, LIBOR basis curves and cross currency basis curves. Certain of these derivatives are valued based on independent non-binding broker quotations.

Credit contracts.

Non-option-based— Significant unobservable inputs may include credit correlation, repurchase rates, and the extrapolation beyond observable limits of the swap yield curve and credit curves. Certain of these derivatives are valued based on independent non-binding broker quotations.

Equity market contracts.

Non-option-based— Significant unobservable inputs may include the extrapolation beyond observable limits of dividend yield curves.

Option-based— Significant unobservable inputs may include the extrapolation beyond observable limits of dividend yield curves and equity volatility.

Direct and Assumed Guaranteed Minimum Benefits

These embedded derivatives are principally valued using an income approach. Valuations are based on option pricing techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include swap yield curve, currency exchange rates and implied volatilities. These embedded derivatives result in Level 3 classification because one or more of the significant inputs are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data. Significant unobservable inputs generally include: the extrapolation beyond observable limits of the swap yield curve and implied volatilities, actuarial assumptions for policyholder behavior and mortality and the potential variability in policyholder behavior and mortality, nonperformance risk and cost of capital for purposes of calculating the risk margin.

Reinsurance Ceded on Certain Guaranteed Minimum Benefits

These embedded derivatives are principally valued using an income approach. The valuation techniques and significant market standard unobservable inputs used in their valuation are similar to those previously described for Direct and Assumed Guaranteed Minimum Benefits and also include counterparty credit spreads.

69

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Embedded Derivatives Within Funds Withheld Related to Certain Ceded Reinsurance

These embedded derivatives are principally valued using an income approach. Valuations are based on present value techniques, which utilize significant inputs that may include the swap yield curve and the fair value of assets within the reference portfolio. These embedded derivatives result in Level 3 classification because one or more of the significant inputs are not observable in the market or cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data. Significant unobservable inputs generally include: the fair value of certain assets within the reference portfolio which are not observable in the market and cannot be derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data.

Separate Account Assets

These assets are comprised of investments that are similar in nature to the fixed maturity securities and equity securities referred to above. Separate account assets within this level also include other limited partnership interests. Other limited partnership interests are valued giving consideration to the value of the underlying holdings of the partnerships and by applying a premium or discount, if appropriate, for factors such as liquidity, bid/ask spreads, the performance record of the fund manager or other relevant variables which may impact the exit value of the particular partnership interest.

Transfers between Levels 1 and 2:

During the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, transfers between Levels 1 and 2 were not significant.

Transfers into or out of Level 3:

Overall, transfers intoand/or out of Level 3 are attributable to a change in the observability of inputs. Assets and liabilities are transferred into Level 3 when a significant input cannot be corroborated with market observable data. This occurs when market activity decreases significantly and underlying inputs cannot be observed, current prices are not available,and/or when there are significant variances in quoted prices, thereby affecting transparency. Assets and liabilities are transferred out of Level 3 when circumstances change such that a significant input can be corroborated with market observable data. This may be due to a significant increase in market activity, a specific event, or one or more significant input(s) becoming observable. Transfers intoand/or out of any level are assumed to occur at the beginning of the period. Significant transfers intoand/or out of Level 3 assets and liabilities for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 are summarized below.

Transfers into Level 3 resulted primarily from current market conditions characterized by a lack of trading activity, decreased liquidity and credit ratings downgrades (e.g., from investment grade to below investment grade) which have resulted in decreased transparency of valuations and an increased use of broker quotations and unobservable inputs to determine estimated fair value.

During the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, transfers into Level 3 for fixed maturity securities of $142 million and $125 million, respectively, were principally comprised of certain ABS and foreign corporate securities. During the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, transfers into Level 3 for fixed maturity securities of $68 million and $300 million, respectively, were principally comprised of certain CMBS and U.S. and foreign corporate securities.

Transfers out of Level 3 resulted primarily from increased transparency of both new issuances that subsequent to issuance and establishment of trading activity, became priced by independent pricing services and existing issuances that, over time, the Company was able to obtain pricing from, or corroborate pricing received from, independent pricing services with observable inputs or increases in market activity and upgraded credit ratings.

70

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

With respect to derivatives, transfers out of Level 3 resulted primarily from increased transparency related to the observable portion of the swap yield curve or the observable portion of the equity volatility surface.

During the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, transfers out of Level 3 for fixed maturity securities of $78 million and $435 million, respectively, were principally comprised of certain ABS and U.S. and foreign corporate securities. During the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, transfers out of Level 3 for fixed maturity securities of $226 million and $334 million, respectively, were principally comprised of certain U.S. and foreign corporate securities, ABS and CMBS.

The following tables summarize the change of all assets and (liabilities) measured at estimated fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), including realized and unrealized gains (losses) of all assets and (liabilities) and realized and unrealized gains (losses) of all assets and (liabilities) still held at the end of the respective time periods:

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Fixed Maturity Securities:
				U.S.											State and
	U.S.			Treasury		Foreign									Political						Foreign
	Corporate			and Agency		Corporate									Subdivision						Government
	Securities			Securities		Securities			RMBS			CMBS			Securities			ABS			Securities
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,445		$	—	$	756		$	19		$	155		$	25		$	308		$	2
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in:
Earnings: (1), (2)
Net investment income		3			—		—			—			—			—			—			—
Net investment gains (losses)		28			—		—			—			—			—			—			—
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—		—			—			—			—			—			—
Other comprehensive income (loss)		70			—		(19	)		(1	)		4			(1	)		(14	)		—
Purchases (3)		124			—		10			—			—			—			115			—
Sales (3)		(73	)		—		(118	)		—			(1	)		(1	)		(10	)		—
Issuances (3)		—			—		—			—			—			—			—			—
Settlements (3)		—			—		—			—			—			—			—			—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)		—			—		22			—			—			—			120			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)		(42	)		—		(36	)		—			—			—			—			—
Balance, end of period	$	1,555		$	—	$	615		$	18		$	158		$	23		$	519		$	2
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets and liabilities still held at September 30, 2011 included in earnings:
Net investment income	$	3		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	—	$	(4	)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—

71

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Equity Securities:									Net Derivatives: (5)
				Non-
				redeemable						Interest			Foreign					Equity			Net		Separate
	Common			Preferred			Short-term			Rate			Currency		Credit			Market			Embedded		Account
	Stock			Stock			Investments			Contracts			Contracts		Contracts			Contracts			Derivatives (6)		Assets (7)
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Balance, beginning of period	$	32		$	121		$	92		$	(62	)	$	—	$	10		$	2		$	782	$	130
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in:
Earnings: (1), (2)
Net investment income		—			—			—			—			—		—			—			—		—
Net investment gains (losses)		—			—			—			—			—		—			—			—		(1	)
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—			—			29			—		(18	)		66			42		—
Other comprehensive income (loss)		(11	)		(9	)		—			195			—		—			—			—		—
Purchases (3)		—			—			10			—			—		—			3			—		2
Sales (3)		—			(19	)		(47	)		—			—		—			—			—		—
Issuances (3)		—			—			—			—			—		—			(4	)		—		—
Settlements (3)		—			—			—			(8	)		—		—			—			19		—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)		—			—			—			1			—		—			—			—		—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)		—			—			—			—			—		—			—			—		—
Balance, end of period	$	21		$	93		$	55		$	155		$	—	$	(8	)	$	67		$	843	$	131
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets and liabilities still held at September 30, 2011 included in earnings:
Net investment income	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	27		$	—	$	(18	)	$	65		$	40	$	—

72

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Fixed Maturity Securities:
				U.S.										State and
	U.S.			Treasury		Foreign								Political						Foreign
	Corporate			and Agency		Corporate								Subdivision						Government
	Securities			Securities		Securities			RMBS			CMBS		Securities			ABS			Securities
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,609		$	34	$	856		$	67		$	100	$	39		$	565		$	7
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in:
Earnings: (1), (2)
Net investment income		1			—		—			—			—		—			1			—
Net investment gains (losses)		(5	)		—		—			—			—		—			(1	)		—
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—		—			—			—		—			—			—
Other comprehensive income (loss)		50			1		70			1			6		(2	)		16			—
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements (3)		(22	)		—		60			266			—		(2	)		26			—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)		25			—		42			1			—		—			—			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)		(128	)		—		(60	)		(14	)		—		(3	)		(21	)		—
Balance, end of period	$	1,530		$	35	$	968		$	321		$	106	$	32		$	586		$	7
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets and liabilities still held at September 30, 2010 included in earnings:
Net investment income	$	2		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	(5	)	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	(1	)	$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—

73

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Equity Securities:								Net Derivatives: (5)
					Non-
					redeemable				Interest		Foreign						Equity			Net		Separate
	Common				Preferred		Short-term		Rate		Currency			Credit			Market			Embedded		Account
	Stock				Stock		Investments		Contracts		Contracts			Contracts			Contracts			Derivatives (6)		Assets (7)
	(In millions)
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Balance, beginning of period	$	44		��	$	189	$	13	$	9	$	8		$	10		$	46		$	612	$	140
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in:
Earnings: (1), (2)
Net investment income		—				—		2		—		—			—			—			—		—
Net investment gains (losses)		1				1		—		—		—			—			—			—		(1	)
Net derivative gains (losses)		—				—		—		5		—			2			(16	)		84		—
Other comprehensive income (loss)		1				14		—		2		—			5			—			—		—
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements (3)		(19	)			13		38		—		—			(7	)		—			28		(4	)
Transfers into Level 3 (4)		—				—		—		—		—			—			—			—		1
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)		—				—		—		—		(8	)		—			—			—		—
Balance, end of period	$	27			$	217	$	53	$	16	$	—		$	10		$	30		$	724	$	136
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets and liabilities still held at September 30, 2010 included in earnings:
Net investment income	$	—			$	—	$	2	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—			$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—			$	—	$	—	$	4	$	—		$	3		$	(15	)	$	85	$	—

74

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Fixed Maturity Securities:
				U.S.												State and
	U.S.			Treasury			Foreign									Political						Foreign
	Corporate			and Agency			Corporate									Subdivision						Government
	Securities			Securities			Securities			RMBS			CMBS			Securities			ABS			Securities
	(In millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,510		$	34		$	880		$	35		$	130		$	32		$	568		$	14
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in:
Earnings: (1), (2)
Net investment income		4			—			2			—			—			—			—			—
Net investment gains (losses)		31			—			(18	)		—			—			—			(10	)		—
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Other comprehensive income (loss)		92			—			15			(1	)		20			(8	)		(1	)		—
Purchases (3)		184			—			270			—			18			—			151			—
Sales (3)		(153	)		—			(502	)		—			(10	)		(1	)		(74	)		(12	)
Issuances (3)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Settlements (3)		—			—			—			—			—			—			—			—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)		4			—			22			—			—			—			99			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)		(117	)		(34	)		(54	)		(16	)		—			—			(214	)		—
Balance, end of period	$	1,555		$	—		$	615		$	18		$	158		$	23		$	519		$	2
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets and liabilities still held at September 30, 2011 included in earnings:
Net investment income	$	5		$	—		$	1		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	(7	)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	(5	)	$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—

75

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Equity Securities:									Net Derivatives: (5)
				Non-
				redeemable						Interest			Foreign					Equity			Net		Separate
	Common			Preferred			Short-term			Rate			Currency		Credit			Market			Embedded		Account
	Stock			Stock			Investments			Contracts			Contracts		Contracts			Contracts			Derivatives (6)		Assets (7)
	(In millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011:
Balance, beginning of period	$	22		$	214		$	173		$	(61	)	$	—	$	11		$	12		$	677	$	133
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in:
Earnings: (1), (2)
Net investment income		—			—			—			—			—		—			—			—		—
Net investment gains (losses)		1			(24	)		(1	)		—			—		—			—			—		(6	)
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—			—			25			—		(16	)		56			115		—
Other comprehensive income (loss)		(7	)		19			—			199			—		—			—			—		—
Purchases (3)		9			—			55			—			—		—			3			—		5
Sales (3)		(4	)		(116	)		(172	)		—			—		—			—			—		(1	)
Issuances (3)		—			—			—			—			—		(1	)		(4	)		—		—
Settlements (3)		—			—			—			(8	)		—		(1	)		—			51		—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)		—			—			—			—			—		(1	)		—			—		—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)		—			—			—			—			—		—			—			—		—
Balance, end of period	$	21		$	93		$	55		$	155		$	—	$	(8	)	$	67		$	843	$	131
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets and liabilities still held at September 30, 2011 included in earnings:
Net investment income	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—		$	(3	)	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	20		$	—	$	(15	)	$	56		$	115	$	—

76

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Fixed Maturity Securities:
				U.S.											State and
	U.S.			Treasury			Foreign								Political						Foreign
	Corporate			and Agency			Corporate								Subdivision						Government
	Securities			Securities			Securities			RMBS		CMBS			Securities			ABS			Securities
	(In millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Balance, beginning of period	$	1,605		$	33		$	994		$	25	$	45		$	32		$	537		$	16
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in:
Earnings: (1), (2)
Net investment income		5			—			(1	)		—		—			—			—			—
Net investment gains (losses)		(4	)		—			(7	)		—		—			—			(1	)		—
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—			—			—		—			—			—			—
Other comprehensive income (loss)		114			3			84			5		16			4			47			—
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements (3)		(153	)		(1	)		(99	)		267		—			(1	)		54			—
Transfers into Level 3 (4)		97			—			100			24		72			—			7			—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)		(134	)		—			(103	)		—		(27	)		(3	)		(58	)		(9	)
Balance, end of period	$	1,530		$	35		$	968		$	321	$	106		$	32		$	586		$	7
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets and liabilities still held at September 30, 2010 included in earnings:
Net investment income	$	4		$	—		$	(1	)	$	—	$	—		$	—		$	1		$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	(9	)	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	(1	)	$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—

77

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	Equity Securities:							Net Derivatives: (5)
			Non-
			redeemable					Interest			Foreign						Equity			Net		Separate
	Common		Preferred			Short-term		Rate			Currency			Credit			Market			Embedded		Account
	Stock		Stock			Investments		Contracts			Contracts			Contracts			Contracts			Derivatives (6)		Assets (7)
	(In millions)
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010:
Balance, beginning of period	$	11	$	258		$	8	$	2		$	23		$	4		$	18		$	445	$	153
Total realized/unrealized gains (losses) included in:
Earnings: (1), (2)
Net investment income		—		—			2		—			—			—			—			—		—
Net investment gains (losses)		4		15			—		—			—			—			—			—		(4	)
Net derivative gains (losses)		—		—			—		13			—			(2	)		13			207		—
Other comprehensive income (loss)		2		9			—		2			—			14			—			—		—
Purchases, sales, issuances and settlements (3)		10		(65	)		43		(1	)		—			(6	)		(1	)		72		(10	)
Transfers into Level 3 (4)		—		—			—		—			—			—			—			—		—
Transfers out of Level 3 (4)		—		—			—		—			(23	)		—			—			—		(3	)
Balance, end of period	$	27	$	217		$	53	$	16		$	—		$	10		$	30		$	724	$	136
Changes in unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets and liabilities still held at September 30, 2010 included in earnings:
Net investment income	$	—	$	—		$	2	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net investment gains (losses)	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—	$	—
Net derivative gains (losses)	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	13		$	—		$	(2	)	$	13		$	208	$	—

(1)	Amortization of premium/discount is included within net investment income. Impairments charged to earnings on securities are included within net investment gains (losses). Lapses associated with embedded derivatives are included within net derivative gains (losses).
(2)	Interest and dividend accruals, as well as cash interest coupons and dividends received, are excluded from the rollforward.
(3)	The amount reported within purchases, sales, issuances and settlements is the purchase or issuance price and the sales or settlement proceeds based upon the actual date purchased or issued and sold or settled, respectively. Items purchased/issued and sold/settled in the same period are excluded from the rollforward. For the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, fees attributed to net embedded derivatives are included within settlements. For the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, fees attributed to net embedded derivatives are included within purchases, sales, issuances and settlements.
(4)	Total gains and losses (in earnings and other comprehensive income (loss)) are calculated assuming transfers into and/or out of Level 3 occurred at the beginning of the period. Items transferred into and/or out of Level 3 in the same period are excluded from the rollforward.
(5)	Freestanding derivative assets and liabilities are presented net for purposes of the rollforward.
(6)	Embedded derivative assets and liabilities are presented net for purposes of the rollforward.
(7)	Investment performance related to separate account assets is fully offset by corresponding amounts credited to contractholders within separate account liabilities. Therefore, such changes in estimated fair value are not recorded in net income. For the purpose of this disclosure, these changes are presented within net investment gains (losses).

78

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

FVO — CSEs

The Company has elected the FVO for the following assets and liabilities held by CSEs: commercial mortgage loans and long-term debt. The following table presents these commercial mortgage loans carried under the FVO at:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Unpaid principal balance	$	3,063	$	6,636
Excess of estimated fair value over unpaid principal balance		164		204
Carrying value at estimated fair value	$	3,227	$	6,840

The following table presents the long-term debt carried under the FVO related to commercial mortgage loans at:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Contractual principal balance	$	2,968	$	6,541
Excess of estimated fair value over contractual principal balance		190		232
Carrying value at estimated fair value	$	3,158	$	6,773

Interest income on commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs is recorded in net investment income. Interest expense on long-term debt of CSEs is recorded in other expenses. Gains and losses from initial measurement, subsequent changes in estimated fair value and gains or losses on sales of both the commercial mortgage loans and long-term debt are recognized in net investment gains (losses), which is summarized in Note 2.

Non-Recurring Fair Value Measurements

Certain investments are measured at estimated fair value on a non-recurring basis and are not included in the tables presented above. The amounts below relate to certain investments measured at estimated fair value during the period and still held at the reporting dates.

	Three Months Ended September 30,
	2011							2010
			Estimated		Net					Estimated		Net
	Carrying		Fair		Investment			Carrying		Fair		Investment
	Value Prior to		Value After		Gains			Value Prior to		Value After		Gains
	Measurement		Measurement		(Losses)			Measurement		Measurement		(Losses)
	(In millions)
Mortgage loans, net (1)	$	8	$	8	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	—
Other limited partnership interests (2)	$	4	$	3	$	(1	)	$	3	$	1	$	(2	)
Real estate joint ventures (3)	$	—	$	—	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	—

79

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2011							2010
			Estimated		Net					Estimated		Net
	Carrying		Fair		Investment			Carrying		Fair		Investment
	Value Prior to		Value After		Gains			Value Prior to		Value After		Gains
	Measurement		Measurement		(Losses)			Measurement		Measurement		(Losses)
	(In millions)
Mortgage loans, net (1)	$	—	$	8	$	8		$	—	$	—	$	—
Other limited partnership interests (2)	$	7	$	5	$	(2	)	$	27	$	18	$	(9	)
Real estate joint ventures (3)	$	—	$	—	$	—		$	25	$	5	$	(20	)

(1)	Mortgage loans —The impaired mortgage loans presented above were written down to their estimated fair values at the date the impairments were recognized and are reported as losses above. Subsequent improvements in estimated fair value on previously impaired loans recorded through a reduction in the previously established valuation allowance are reported as gains above. Estimated fair values for impaired mortgage loans are based on observable market prices or, if the loans are in foreclosure or are otherwise determined to be collateral dependent, on the estimated fair value of the underlying collateral, or the present value of the expected future cash flows. Impairments to estimated fair value and decreases in previous impairments from subsequent improvements in estimated fair value represent non-recurring fair value measurements that have been categorized as Level 3 due to the lack of price transparency inherent in the limited markets for such mortgage loans.
(2)	Other limited partnership interests— The impaired investments presented above were accounted for using the cost method. Impairments on these cost method investments were recognized at estimated fair value determined from information provided in the financial statements of the underlying entities in the period in which the impairment was incurred. These impairments to estimated fair value represent non-recurring fair value measurements that have been classified as Level 3 due to the limited activity and price transparency inherent in the market for such investments. This category includes several private equity and debt funds that typically invest primarily in a diversified pool of investments using certain investment strategies including domestic and international leveraged buyout funds; power, energy, timber and infrastructure development funds; venture capital funds; and below investment grade debt and mezzanine debt funds. The estimated fair values of these investments have been determined using the NAV of the Company’s ownership interest in the partners’ capital. Distributions from these investments will be generated from investment gains, from operating income from the underlying investments of the funds and from liquidation of the underlying assets of the funds. It is estimated that the underlying assets of the funds will be liquidated over the next 2 to 10 years. Unfunded commitments for these investments were $1 million and $21 million at September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
(3)	Real estate joint ventures— The impaired investments presented above were accounted for using the cost method. Impairments on these cost method investments were recognized at estimated fair value determined from information provided in the financial statements of the underlying entities in the period in which the impairment was incurred. These impairments to estimated fair value represent non-recurring fair value measurements that have been classified as Level 3 due to the limited activity and price transparency inherent in the market for such investments. This category includes several real estate funds that typically invest primarily in commercial real estate. The estimated fair values of these investments have been determined using the NAV of the Company’s ownership interest in the partners’ capital. Distributions from these investments will be generated from investment gains, from operating income from the underlying investments of the funds and from liquidation of the underlying assets of the funds. It is estimated that the underlying assets of the funds will be liquidated over the next 2 to 10 years. There were no unfunded commitments for these investments at September 30, 2011. Unfunded commitments for these investments were $3 million at September 30, 2010.

80

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Amounts related to the Company’s financial instruments that were not measured at fair value on a recurring basis were as follows:

	September 30, 2011							December 31, 2010
					Estimated							Estimated
	Notional		Carrying		Fair			Notional		Carrying		Fair
	Amount		Value		Value			Amount		Value		Value
	(In millions)
Assets:
Mortgage loans, net (1)			$	6,305	$	6,541				$	5,890	$	6,022
Policy loans			$	1,193	$	1,296				$	1,190	$	1,260
Real estate joint ventures (2)			$	87	$	122				$	79	$	102
Other limited partnership interests (2)			$	101	$	129				$	104	$	116
Short-term investments (3)			$	43	$	43				$	88	$	88
Other invested assets (2)			$	305	$	338				$	—	$	—
Cash and cash equivalents			$	964	$	964				$	1,928	$	1,928
Accrued investment income			$	596	$	596				$	559	$	559
Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables (2)			$	5,947	$	6,680				$	5,959	$	6,164
Liabilities:
Policyholder account balances (2)			$	23,001	$	24,505				$	24,622	$	26,061
Payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions			$	8,466	$	8,466				$	8,103	$	8,103
Long-term debt (4)			$	792	$	860				$	795	$	930
Other liabilities (2)			$	375	$	375				$	294	$	294
Separate account liabilities (2)			$	1,174	$	1,174				$	1,407	$	1,407
Commitments: (5)
Mortgage loan commitments	$	130	$	—	$	1		$	270	$	—	$	(2	)
Commitments to fund bank credit facilities and private corporate bond investments	$	463	$	—	$	(3	)	$	315	$	—	$	(12	)

(1)	Mortgage loans as presented in the table above differ from the amounts presented in the consolidated balance sheets because this table does not include commercial mortgage loans held by CSEs, which are accounted for under the FVO.
(2)	Carrying values presented herein differ from those presented in the consolidated balance sheets because certain items within the respective financial statement caption are not considered financial instruments. Financial statement captions excluded from the table above are not considered financial instruments.
(3)	Short-term investments as presented in the table above differ from the amounts presented in the consolidated balance sheets because this table does not include short-term investments that meet the definition of a security, which are measured at estimated fair value on a recurring basis.
(4)	Long-term debt as presented in the table above differs from the amounts presented in the consolidated balance sheets because this table does not include long-term debt of CSEs, which is accounted for under the FVO.
(5)	Commitments are off-balance sheet obligations. Negative estimated fair values represent off-balance sheet liabilities.

81

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

The methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of financial instruments are summarized as follows:

The assets and liabilities measured at estimated fair value on a recurring basis include: fixed maturity securities, equity securities, other securities, certain short-term investments, mortgage loans held by CSEs, derivative assets and liabilities, net embedded derivatives within asset and liability host contracts, separate account assets and long-term debt of CSEs. These assets and liabilities are described in the section “— Recurring Fair Value Measurements” and, therefore, are excluded from the table above. The estimated fair value for these financial instruments approximates carrying value.

Mortgage Loans

The Company originates mortgage loans principally for investment purposes. These loans are principally carried at amortized cost. The estimated fair value of mortgage loans is primarily determined by estimating expected future cash flows and discounting them using current interest rates for similar mortgage loans with similar credit risk.

Policy Loans

For policy loans with fixed interest rates, estimated fair values are determined using a discounted cash flow model applied to groups of similar policy loans determined by the nature of the underlying insurance liabilities. Cash flow estimates are developed applying a weighted-average interest rate to the outstanding principal balance of the respective group of policy loans and an estimated average maturity determined through experience studies of the past performance of policyholder repayment behavior for similar loans. These cash flows are discounted using current risk-free interest rates with no adjustment for borrower credit risk as these loans are fully collateralized by the cash surrender value of the underlying insurance policy. The estimated fair value for policy loans with variable interest rates approximates carrying value due to the absence of borrower credit risk and the short time period between interest rate resets, which presents minimal risk of a material change in estimated fair value due to changes in market interest rates.

Real Estate Joint Ventures and Other Limited Partnership Interests

Real estate joint ventures and other limited partnership interests included in the preceding table consist of those investments accounted for using the cost method. The remaining carrying value recognized in the consolidated balance sheets represents investments in real estate carried at cost less accumulated depreciation, or real estate joint ventures and other limited partnership interests accounted for using the equity method, which do not meet the definition of financial instruments for which fair value is required to be disclosed.

The estimated fair values for real estate joint ventures and other limited partnership interests accounted for under the cost method are generally based on the Company’s share of the NAV as provided in the financial statements of the investees. In certain circumstances, management may adjust the NAV by a premium or discount when it has sufficient evidence to support applying such adjustments.

Short-term Investments

Certain short-term investments do not qualify as securities and are recognized at amortized cost in the consolidated balance sheets. For these instruments, the Company believes that there is minimal risk of material changes in interest rates or credit of the issuer such that estimated fair value approximates carrying value. In light of recent market conditions, short-term investments have been monitored to ensure there is sufficient demand and maintenance of issuer credit quality and the Company has determined additional adjustment is not required.

82

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Other Invested Assets

Other invested assets within the preceding table are comprised of loans to affiliates. The estimated fair value of loans to affiliates is determined by discounting the expected future cash flows using market interest rates currently available for instruments with similar terms and remaining maturities.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Due to the short-term maturities of cash and cash equivalents, the Company believes there is minimal risk of material changes in interest rates or credit of the issuer such that estimated fair value generally approximates carrying value. In light of recent market conditions, cash and cash equivalent instruments have been monitored to ensure there is sufficient demand and maintenance of issuer credit quality, or sufficient solvency in the case of depository institutions, and the Company has determined additional adjustment is not required.

Accrued Investment Income

Due to the short term until settlement of accrued investment income, the Company believes there is minimal risk of material changes in interest rates or credit of the issuer such that estimated fair value approximates carrying value. In light of recent market conditions, the Company has monitored the credit quality of the issuers and has determined additional adjustment is not required.

Premiums, Reinsurance and Other Receivables

Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables in the preceding table are principally comprised of certain amounts recoverable under reinsurance contracts, amounts on deposit with financial institutions to facilitate daily settlements related to certain derivative positions and amounts receivable for securities sold but not yet settled.

Premiums receivable and those amounts recoverable under reinsurance treaties determined to transfer sufficient risk are not financial instruments subject to disclosure and thus have been excluded from the amounts presented in the preceding table. Amounts recoverable under ceded reinsurance contracts, which the Company has determined do not transfer sufficient risk such that they are accounted for using the deposit method of accounting, have been included in the preceding table. The estimated fair value is determined as the present value of expected future cash flows under the related contracts, which were discounted using an interest rate determined to reflect the appropriate credit standing of the assuming counterparty.

The amounts on deposit for derivative settlements essentially represent the equivalent of demand deposit balances and amounts due for securities sold are generally received over short periods such that the estimated fair value approximates carrying value. In light of recent market conditions, the Company has monitored the solvency position of the financial institutions and has determined additional adjustments are not required.

Policyholder Account Balances

Policyholder account balances in the table above include investment contracts. Embedded derivatives on investment contracts and certain variable annuity guarantees accounted for as embedded derivatives are included in this caption in the consolidated financial statements but excluded from this caption in the table above as they are separately presented in “— Recurring Fair Value Measurements.” The remaining difference between the amounts reflected as policyholder account balances in the preceding table and those recognized in the consolidated balance sheets represents those amounts due under contracts that satisfy the definition of insurance contracts and are not considered financial instruments.

The investment contracts primarily include certain funding agreements, fixed deferred annuities, modified guaranteed annuities, fixed term payout annuities and total control accounts. The fair values for these investment

83

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

contracts are estimated by discounting best estimate future cash flows using current market risk-free interest rates and adding a spread to reflect the nonperformance risk in the liability.

Payables for Collateral Under Securities Loaned and Other Transactions

The estimated fair value for payables for collateral under securities loaned and other transactions approximates carrying value. The related agreements to loan securities are short-term in nature such that the Company believes there is limited risk of a material change in market interest rates. Additionally, because borrowers are cross-collateralized by the borrowed securities, the Company believes no additional consideration for changes in nonperformance risk are necessary.

Long-term Debt

The estimated fair value of long-term debt is generally determined by discounting expected future cash flows using market rates currently available for debt with similar remaining maturities and reflecting the credit risk of the Company, including inputs when available, from actively traded debt of other companies with similar types of borrowing arrangements. Risk-adjusted discount rates applied to the expected future cash flows can vary significantly based upon the specific terms of each individual arrangement, including, but not limited to: contractual interest rates in relation to current market rates, the structuring of the arrangement, and the nature and observability of the applicable valuation inputs. Use of different risk-adjusted discount rates could result in different estimated fair values.

Other Liabilities

Other liabilities included in the table above reflect those other liabilities that satisfy the definition of financial instruments subject to disclosure. These items consist primarily of interest payable, amounts due for securities purchased but not yet settled, and funds withheld under reinsurance treaties accounted for as deposit type treaties. The Company evaluates the specific terms, facts and circumstances of each instrument to determine the appropriate estimated fair values, which are not materially different from the carrying values.

Separate Account Liabilities

Separate account liabilities included in the preceding table represent those balances due to policyholders under contracts that are classified as investment contracts. The remaining amounts presented in the consolidated balance sheets represent those contracts classified as insurance contracts, which do not satisfy the definition of financial instruments.

Separate account liabilities classified as investment contracts primarily represent variable annuities with no significant mortality risk to the Company such that the death benefit is equal to the account balance and certain contracts that provide for benefit funding.

Separate account liabilities are recognized in the consolidated balance sheets at an equivalent value of the related separate account assets. Separate account assets, which equal net deposits, net investment income and realized and unrealized investment gains and losses, are fully offset by corresponding amounts credited to the contractholders’ liability which is reflected in separate account liabilities. Since separate account liabilities are fully funded by cash flows from the separate account assets which are recognized at estimated fair value as described in the section “— Recurring Fair Value Measurements,” the Company believes the value of those assets approximates the estimated fair value of the related separate account liabilities.

84

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Mortgage Loan Commitments and Commitments to Fund Bank Credit Facilities and Private Corporate Bond Investments

The estimated fair values for mortgage loan commitments that will be held for investment and commitments to fund bank credit facilities and private corporate bonds that will be held for investment reflected in the above table represents the difference between the discounted expected future cash flows using interest rates that incorporate current credit risk for similar instruments on the reporting date and the principal amounts of the commitments.

5.   Contingencies, Commitments and Guarantees

Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is a defendant in a number of litigation matters. In some of the matters, largeand/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experience of the Company in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may normally be difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for some of the matters below. It is possible that some of the matters could require the Company to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated at September 30, 2011.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made

For some of the matters discussed below, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. As of September 30, 2011, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters is not material for the Company.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made

For other matters disclosed below, the Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation

85

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

contingencies and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Sales Practices Claims

Over the past several years, the Company has faced claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The Company continues to vigorously defend against the claims in all pending matters. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for sales practices matters.

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut are engaged in an arbitration proceeding to determine whether MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is owed money from Connecticut General Life Insurance Company or is required to refund several million dollars it collectedand/or should stop submitting certain claims under reinsurance contracts in which Connecticut General Life Insurance Company reinsured death benefits payable under certain MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut annuities.

A former Tower Square financial services representative is alleged to have misappropriated funds from customers. The Illinois Securities Division, the U.S. Postal Inspector, the Internal Revenue Service, FINRA and the U.S. Attorney’s Office have conducted inquiries. Tower Square has made remediation to all the affected customers. The Illinois Securities Division has issued a Statement of Violations to Tower Square, and Tower Square is conducting discussions with the Illinois Securities Division.

Unclaimed Property Inquiries

More than 30 U.S. jurisdictions are auditing MetLife, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, including MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, for compliance with unclaimed property laws. Additionally, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and certain of its affiliates have received subpoenas and other regulatory inquiries from certain regulators and other officials relating to claims-payment practices and compliance with unclaimed property laws. An examination of these practices by the Illinois Department of Insurance has been converted into a multistate targeted market conduct exam. On July 5, 2011, the New York Insurance Department issued a letter requiring life insurers doing business in New York to use data available on the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File or a similar database to identify instances where death benefits under life insurance policies, annuities, and retained asset accounts are payable, to locate and pay beneficiaries under such contracts, and to report the results of the use of the data. It is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar investigations or inquiries, may join the multistate market conduct exam, or issue directives similar to the New York Insurance Department’s letter. It is possible that the audits, market conduct exam, and related activity may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, administrative penalties, interest and changes to the Company’s procedures for the identification and escheatment of abandoned property. The Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible amount of any such additional payments or the reasonably possible cost of any such changes in procedures.

Summary

Various litigation, claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, employer, investor, investment advisor and taxpayer. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.

86

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings. In some of the matters referred to previously, largeand/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Although, in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known by the Company’s management, in its opinion, the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are not likely to have such an effect. However, given the largeand/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Commitments

Commitments to Fund Partnership Investments

The Company makes commitments to fund partnership investments in the normal course of business. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The Company anticipates that these amounts will be invested in partnerships over the next five years.

Mortgage Loan Commitments

The Company commits to lend funds under mortgage loan commitments. The amounts of these mortgage loan commitments were $130 million and $270 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.

Commitments to Fund Bank Credit Facilities and Private Corporate Bond Investments

The Company commits to lend funds under bank credit facilities and private corporate bond investments. The amounts of these unfunded commitments were $463 million and $315 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively.

Other Commitments

The Company has entered into collateral arrangements with affiliates, which require the transfer of collateral in connection with secured demand notes. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, the Company had agreed to fund up to $90 million and $114 million, respectively, of cash upon the request by these affiliates and had transferred collateral consisting of various securities with a fair market value of $129 million and $144 million, respectively, to custody accounts to secure the notes. Each of these affiliates is permitted by contract to sell or repledge this collateral.

Guarantees

The Company has provided a guarantee on behalf of MetLife International Insurance Company, Ltd. (“MLII”), a former affiliate, that is triggered if MLII cannot pay claims because of insolvency, liquidation or rehabilitation. Life insurance coverage in-force, representing the maximum potential obligation under this guarantee, was $274 million and $297 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. The Company does not hold any collateral related to this guarantee, but has a recorded liability of $1 million that was based on the total account value of the guaranteed policies plus the amounts retained per policy at both September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. The remainder of the risk was ceded to external reinsurers.

87

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

6.   Equity

During the second quarter of 2011, Sino-US MetLife Insurance Company Limited (“Sino”), an insurance underwriting joint venture of the Company accounted for under the equity method, merged with United MetLife Insurance Company Limited (“United”), another insurance underwriting joint venture of an affiliate of the Company. The Company’s ownership interest in the merged entity, Sino-US United MetLife Insurance Company Limited(“Sino-United”) was determined based on its contributed capital and share of undistributed earnings of Sino compared to the contributed capital and undistributed earnings of all other investees of Sino and United. Since both of the joint ventures were under common ownership both prior to and subsequent to the merger, the Company’s investment inSino-United is based on the carrying value of its investment in Sino. Pursuant to the merger, the Company entered into an agreement to pay the affiliate an amount based on the relative fair values of their respective investments inSino-United. Accordingly, upon completion of the estimation of fair value, $47 million, representing a return of capital, was paid during the third quarter of 2011. The Company’s investment inSino-United is accounted for under the equity method and is included in other invested assets.

7.   Other Expenses

Information on other expenses was as follows:

	Three Months						Nine Months
	Ended						Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
	(In millions)
Compensation	$	74		$	46		$	225		$	137
Commissions		373			189			1,047			652
Volume-related costs		39			64			121			197
Affiliated interest costs on ceded reinsurance		58			44			163			124
Capitalization of DAC		(384	)		(182	)		(1,078	)		(680	)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA		558			219			1,002			743
Interest expense on debt and debt issue costs		109			118			329			357
Premium taxes, licenses & fees		41			12			69			34
Professional services		7			3			36			13
Rent		7			1			22			2
Other		108			85			287			278
Total other expenses	$	990		$	599		$	2,223		$	1,857

Affiliated Expenses

See Note 9 for a discussion of affiliated expenses included in the table above.

8.   Business Segment Information

The Company’s business is currently divided into three segments: Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding and Insurance Products. In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other.

Retirement Products offers asset accumulation and income products, including a wide variety of annuities. Corporate Benefit Funding offers pension risk solutions, structured settlements, stable value and investment products and other benefit funding products. Insurance Products offers a broad range of protection products and

88

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

services to individuals and corporations, as well as other institutions and their respective employees, and is organized into two distinct businesses: Individual Life and Non-Medical Health. Individual Life insurance products and services include variable life, universal life, term life and whole life products. Non-Medical Health includes individual disability insurance products.

Corporate & Other contains the excess capital not allocated to the segments, various domestic and internationalstart-up entities and run-off business, the Company’s ancillary international operations, interest expense related to the majority of the Company’s outstanding debt and expenses associated with certain legal proceedings and income tax audit issues. Corporate & Other also includes the elimination of intersegment amounts.

Operating earnings is the measure of segment profit or loss the Company uses to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources and, consistent with GAAP accounting guidance for segment reporting, it is the Company’s measure of segment performance and is reported below. Operating earnings should not be viewed as a substitute for GAAP net income (loss). The Company believes the presentation of operating earnings as the Company measures it for management purposes enhances the understanding of its performance by highlighting the results of operations and the underlying profitability drivers of the business.

Operating earnings is defined as operating revenues less operating expenses, both net of income tax.

Operating revenues exclude net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses). The following additional adjustments are made to GAAP revenues, in the line items indicated, in calculating operating revenues:

•  Universal life and investment-type product policy fees exclude the amortization of unearned revenue related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses) and certain variable annuity GMIB fees (“GMIB Fees”); and

•  Net investment income: (i) includes amounts for scheduled periodic settlement payments and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of investments but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, (ii) excludes certain amounts related to contractholder-directed unit-linked investments, and (iii) excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are VIEs consolidated under GAAP.

The following adjustments are made to GAAP expenses, in the line items indicated, in calculating operating expenses:

•  Policyholder benefits and claims exclude: (i) amounts associated with periodic crediting rate adjustments based on the total return of a contractually referenced pool of assets, (ii) benefits and hedging costs related to GMIBs (“GMIB Costs”), and (iii) market value adjustments associated with surrenders or terminations of contracts (“Market Value Adjustments”);

•  Interest credited to policyholder account balances includes adjustments for scheduled periodic settlement payments and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of policyholder account balances but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment and excludes amounts related to net investment income earned on contractholder-directed unit-linked investments;

•  Amortization of DAC and value of business acquired (“VOBA”) excludes amounts related to: (i) net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses), (ii) GMIB Fees and GMIB Costs, and (iii) Market Value Adjustments;

•  Interest expense on debt excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are VIEs consolidated under GAAP; and

•  Other expenses exclude costs related to implementation of new insurance regulatory requirements and business combinations.

89

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

In the first quarter of 2011, management modified its definition of operating earnings to exclude impacts related to certain variable annuity guarantees and Market Value Adjustments to better conform to the way it manages and assesses its business. Accordingly, such results are no longer reported in operating earnings. Consequently, prior period results for Retirement Products and total consolidated operating earnings have been reduced by $2 million, net of $1 million of income tax, and $5 million, net of $3 million of income tax, for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

Set forth in the tables below is certain financial information with respect to the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those of the Company, except for the method of capital allocation and the accounting for gains (losses) from intercompany sales, which are eliminated in consolidation.

Economic capital is an internally developed risk capital model, the purpose of which is to measure the risk in the business and to provide a basis upon which capital is deployed. The economic capital model accounts for the unique and specific nature of the risks inherent in MetLife’s business.

Effective January 1, 2011, MetLife updated its economic capital model to align segment allocated equity with emerging standards and consistent risk principles. Such changes to MetLife’s economic capital model are applied prospectively. Segment net investment income is also credited or charged based on the level of allocated equity; however, changes in allocated equity do not impact the Company’s consolidated net investment income, operating earnings or net income.

90

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Operating Earnings
				Corporate
	Retirement			Benefit		Insurance			Corporate									Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2011	Products			Funding		Products			& Other			Total			Adjustments			Consolidated
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	226		$	219	$	39		$	—		$	484		$	—		$	484
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees		296			9		126			8			439			48			487
Net investment income		206			300		153			54			713			(62	)		651
Other revenues		88			1		34			—			123			—			123
Net investment gains (losses)		—			—		—			—			—			58			58
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—		—			—			—			882			882
Total revenues		816			529		352			62			1,759			926			2,685
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims		263			348		86			1			698			39			737
Interest credited to policyholder account balances		193			43		63			—			299			(137	)		162
Capitalization of DAC		(329	)		—		(40	)		(15	)		(384	)		—			(384	)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA		197			1		45			2			245			313			558
Interest expense on debt		—			—		—			17			17			92			109
Other expenses		460			10		169			59			698			9			707
Total expenses		784			402		323			64			1,573			316			1,889
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)		12			44		11			(24	)		43			208			251
Operating earnings	$	20		$	83	$	18		$	22			143
Adjustments to:
Total revenues													926
Total expenses													(316	)
Provision for income tax (expense) benefit													(208	)
Net income												$	545					$	545

91

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Operating Earnings
				Corporate
	Retirement			Benefit			Insurance			Corporate									Total
Three Months Ended September 30, 2010	Products			Funding			Products			& Other			Total			Adjustments			Consolidated
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	69		$	73		$	33		$	—		$	175		$	—		$	175
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees		227			7			142			4			380			22			402
Net investment income		243			274			121			98			736			87			823
Other revenues		81			2			29			1			113			—			113
Net investment gains (losses)		—			—			—			—			—			9			9
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—			—			—			—			37			37
Total revenues		620			356			325			103			1,404			155			1,559
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims		92			199			58			—			349			35			384
Interest credited to policyholder account balances		170			51			58			69			348			(8	)		340
Capitalization of DAC		(151	)		(2	)		(15	)		(14	)		(182	)		—			(182	)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA		88			—			68			3			159			60			219
Interest expense on debt		—			—			—			17			17			101			118
Other expenses		258			11			150			25			444			—			444
Total expenses		457			259			319			100			1,135			188			1,323
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)		57			34			2			10			103			(12	)		91
Operating earnings	$	106		$	63		$	4		$	(7	)		166
Adjustments to:
Total revenues														155
Total expenses														(188	)
Provision for income tax (expense) benefit														12
Net income													$	145					$	145

92

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Operating Earnings
				Corporate
	Retirement			Benefit			Insurance			Corporate									Total
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011	Products			Funding			Products			& Other			Total			Adjustments			Consolidated
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	355		$	756		$	150		$	—		$	1,261		$	—		$	1,261
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees		859			26			433			28			1,346			89			1,435
Net investment income		620			897			458			146			2,121			114			2,235
Other revenues		272			4			108			—			384			—			384
Net investment gains (losses)		—			—			—			—			—			17			17
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—			—			—			—			859			859
Total revenues		2,106			1,683			1,149			174			5,112			1,079			6,191
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims		459			1,131			222			1			1,813			69			1,882
Interest credited to policyholder account balances		554			138			186			—			878			(125	)		753
Capitalization of DAC		(778	)		(6	)		(249	)		(45	)		(1,078	)		—			(1,078	)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA		441			3			185			5			634			368			1,002
Interest expense on debt		—			—			—			50			50			279			329
Other expenses		1,156			33			636			125			1,950			20			1,970
Total expenses		1,832			1,299			980			136			4,247			611			4,858
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)		96			134			60			(40	)		250			162			412
Operating earnings	$	178		$	250		$	109		$	78			615
Adjustments to:
Total revenues														1,079
Total expenses														(611	)
Provision for income tax (expense) benefit														(162	)
Net income													$	921					$	921

93

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

	Operating Earnings
				Corporate
	Retirement			Benefit			Insurance			Corporate									Total
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010	Products			Funding			Products			& Other			Total			Adjustments			Consolidated
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	217		$	570		$	99		$	—		$	886		$	—		$	886
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees		671			22			408			11			1,112			66			1,178
Net investment income		709			822			353			181			2,065			273			2,338
Other revenues		236			4			85			1			326			—			326
Net investment gains (losses)		—			—			—			—			—			96			96
Net derivative gains (losses)		—			—			—			—			—			292			292
Total revenues		1,833			1,418			945			193			4,389			727			5,116
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims		301			954			231			—			1,486			96			1,582
Interest credited to policyholder account balances		534			144			175			93			946			(33	)		913
Capitalization of DAC		(417	)		(4	)		(220	)		(39	)		(680	)		—			(680	)
Amortization of DAC and VOBA		337			1			207			5			550			193			743
Interest expense on debt		—			—			—			52			52			305			357
Other expenses		737			28			584			88			1,437			—			1,437
Total expenses		1,492			1,123			977			199			3,791			561			4,352
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)		119			102			(11	)		(24	)		186			59			245
Operating earnings	$	222		$	193		$	(21	)	$	18			412
Adjustments to:
Total revenues														727
Total expenses														(561	)
Provision for income tax (expense) benefit														(59	)
Net income													$	519					$	519

The following table presents total assets with respect to the Company’s segments, as well as Corporate & Other, at:

	September 30, 2011		December 31, 2010
	(In millions)
Retirement Products	$	93,417	$	87,461
Corporate Benefit Funding		30,280		30,491
Insurance Products		20,408		16,296
Corporate & Other		19,666		20,637
Total	$	163,771	$	154,885

Net investment income is based upon the actual results of each segment’s specifically identifiable asset portfolio adjusted for allocated equity. Other costs are allocated to each of the segments based upon: (i) a review of the nature of such costs; (ii) time studies analyzing the amount of employee compensation costs incurred by each segment; and (iii) cost estimates included in the Company’s product pricing.

94

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

9.   Related Party Transactions

Service Agreements

The Company has entered into various agreements with affiliates for services necessary to conduct its activities. Typical services provided under these agreements include management, policy administrative functions, personnel, investment advice and distribution services. For certain agreements, charges are based on various performance measures or activity-based costing. The bases for such charges are modified and adjusted by management when necessary or appropriate to reflect fairly and equitably the actual incidence of cost incurred by the Companyand/or affiliate. Expenses and fees incurred with affiliates related to these agreements, recorded in other expenses, were $529 million and $1,363 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and $327 million and $965 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. The aforementioned expenses and fees incurred with affiliates were comprised of the following:

	Three Months				Nine Months
	Ended				Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(In millions)
Compensation	$	65	$	35	$	192	$	109
Commissions		319		142		745		399
Volume-related costs		56		76		165		231
Professional services		5		—		14		—
Rent		7		—		19		—
Other		77		74		228		226
Total other expenses	$	529	$	327	$	1,363	$	965

Revenues received from affiliates related to these agreements were recorded as follows:

	Three Months				Nine Months
	Ended				Ended
	September 30,				September 30,
	2011		2010		2011		2010
	(In millions)
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees	$	37	$	29	$	106	$	83
Other revenues	$	35	$	26	$	100	$	73

The Company had net receivables from affiliates of $55 million and $60 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively, related to the items discussed above. These amounts exclude affiliated reinsurance balances discussed below. See Note 2 for expenses related to investment advice under these agreements, recorded in net investment income.

Reinsurance Transactions

The Company has reinsurance agreements with certain MetLife subsidiaries, including MLIC, MetLife Reinsurance Company of South Carolina, Exeter, General American Life Insurance Company, MetLife Investors Insurance Company and MetLife Reinsurance Company of Vermont, all of which are related parties.

95

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Information regarding the effect of affiliated reinsurance included in the interim condensed consolidated statements of operations was as follows:

	Three Months						Nine Months
	Ended						Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2011			2010			2011			2010
				(In millions)
Premiums:
Reinsurance assumed	$	2		$	3		$	6		$	10
Reinsurance ceded		(89	)		(63	)		(198	)		(174	)
Net premiums	$	(87	)	$	(60	)	$	(192	)	$	(164	)
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees:
Reinsurance assumed	$	29		$	19		$	72		$	49
Reinsurance ceded		(115	)		(69	)		(303	)		(202	)
Net universal life and investment-type product policy fees	$	(86	)	$	(50	)	$	(231	)	$	(153	)
Other revenues:
Reinsurance assumed	$	—		$	—		$	—		$	—
Reinsurance ceded		71			73			229			212
Net other revenues	$	71		$	73		$	229		$	212
Policyholder benefits and claims:
Reinsurance assumed	$	5		$	5		$	17		$	11
Reinsurance ceded		(165	)		(80	)		(393	)		(253	)
Net policyholder benefits and claims	$	(160	)	$	(75	)	$	(376	)	$	(242	)
Interest credited to policyholder account balances:
Reinsurance assumed	$	17		$	16		$	50		$	47
Reinsurance ceded		(23	)		(17	)		(60	)		(41	)
Net interest credited to policyholder account balances	$	(6	)	$	(1	)	$	(10	)	$	6
Other expenses:
Reinsurance assumed	$	16		$	11		$	44		$	36
Reinsurance ceded		40			57			122			117
Net other expenses	$	56		$	68		$	166		$	153

96

MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut
(A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.)

Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) — (Continued)

Information regarding the effect of affiliated reinsurance included in the interim condensed consolidated balance sheets was as follows at:

	September 30, 2011					December 31, 2010
	Assumed		Ceded			Assumed		Ceded
	(In millions)
Assets:
Premiums, reinsurance and other receivables	$	36	$	12,099		$	40	$	9,826
Deferred policy acquisition costs and value of business acquired		139		(568	)		164		(484	)
Total assets	$	175	$	11,531		$	204	$	9,342
Liabilities:
Future policy benefits	$	46	$	—		$	41	$	—
Other policy-related balances		1,488		650			1,435		508
Other liabilities		12		3,481			12		3,200
Total liabilities	$	1,546	$	4,131		$	1,488	$	3,708

The Company ceded risks to affiliates related to guaranteed minimum benefit guarantees written directly by the Company through December 31, 2010. These ceded reinsurance agreements contain embedded derivatives and changes in their fair value are also included within net derivative gains (losses). The embedded derivatives associated with the cessions are included within premiums, reinsurance and other receivables and were assets of $3,032 million and $936 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Net derivative gains (losses) associated with the embedded derivatives were $2,129 million and $1,881 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and ($31) million and $1,016 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

MLI-USA cedes two blocks of business to an affiliate on a 90% coinsurance with funds withheld basis. Certain contractual features of this agreement qualify as embedded derivatives, which are separately accounted for at estimated fair value on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet. The embedded derivative related to the funds withheld associated with this reinsurance agreement is included within other liabilities and increased the funds withheld balance by $394 million and $5 million at September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Net derivative gains (losses) associated with the embedded derivatives were ($365) million and ($390) million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and ($71) million and ($161) million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. The reinsurance agreement also includes an experience refund provision, whereby some or all of the profits on the underlying reinsurance agreement are returned to MLI-USA from the affiliated reinsurer during the first several years of the reinsurance agreement. The experience refund reduced the funds withheld by MLI-USA from the affiliated reinsurer by $88 million and $186 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and $68 million and $185 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, and are considered unearned revenue, amortized over the life of the contract using the same assumptions as used for the DAC associated with the underlying policies. Amortization and interest of the unearned revenue associated with the experience refund was $12 million and $49 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, and $21 million and $66 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively, and is included in premiums and universal life and investment-type product policy fees in the consolidated statements of operations. At September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010, unearned revenue related to the experience refund was $698 million and $560 million, respectively, and is included in other policy-related balances in the interim condensed consolidated balance sheets.

97

Item 2.   Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

For purposes of this discussion, “MICC,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, a Connecticut corporation incorporated in 1863, and its subsidiaries, including MetLife Investors USA Insurance Company. MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut is a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”). Management’s narrative analysis of the results of operations is presented pursuant to General Instruction H(2)(a) ofForm 10-Q. This narrative analysis should be read in conjunction with MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “2010 Annual Report”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the forward-looking statement information included below, the “Risk Factors” set forth in Part II, Item 1A, and the additional risk factors referred to therein, and the Company’s interim condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein.

This narrative analysis may contain or incorporate by reference information that includes or is based upon forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements give expectations or forecasts of future events. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. They use words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “plan,” “believe” and other words and terms of similar meaning in connection with a discussion of future operating or financial performance. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, prospective services or products, future performance or results of current and anticipated services or products, sales efforts, expenses, the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings, trends in operations and financial results. Any or all forward-looking statements may turn out to be wrong. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. See “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.”

The following discussion includes references to our performance measure, operating earnings, that is not based on accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). Operating earnings is the measure of segment profit or loss we use to evaluate segment performance and allocate resources and, consistent with GAAP accounting guidance for segment reporting, it is our measure of segment performance.

Operating earnings is defined as operating revenues less operating expenses, both net of income tax.

Operating revenues exclude net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses). The following additional adjustments are made to GAAP revenues, in the line items indicated, in calculating operating revenues:

•  Universal life and investment-type product policy fees exclude the amortization of unearned revenue related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses) and certain variable annuity guaranteed minimum income benefits (“GMIB”) fees (“GMIB Fees”); and

•  Net investment income: (i) includes amounts for scheduled periodic settlement payments and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of investments but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, (ii) excludes certain amounts related to contractholder-directed unit-linked investments, and (iii) excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are variable interest entities (“VIEs”) consolidated under GAAP.

The following adjustments are made to GAAP expenses, in the line items indicated, in calculating operating expenses:

•  Policyholder benefits and claims exclude: (i) amounts associated with periodic crediting rate adjustments based on the total return of a contractually referenced pool of assets, (ii) benefits and hedging costs related to GMIBs (“GMIB Costs”), and (iii) market value adjustments associated with surrenders or terminations of contracts (“Market Value Adjustments”);

•  Interest credited to policyholder account balances includes adjustments for scheduled periodic settlement payments and amortization of premium on derivatives that are hedges of policyholder account balances but do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment and excludes amounts related to net investment income earned on contractholder-directed unit-linked investments;

98

•  Amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs (“DAC”) and value of business acquired (“VOBA”) excludes amounts related to: (i) net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses), (ii) GMIB Fees and GMIB Costs, and (iii) Market Value Adjustments;

•  Interest expense on debt excludes certain amounts related to securitization entities that are VIEs consolidated under GAAP; and

•  Other expenses exclude costs related to implementation of new insurance regulatory requirements and business combinations.

We believe the presentation of operating earnings, as we measure it for management purposes enhances the understanding of our performance by highlighting the results of operations and the underlying profitability drivers of our business. Operating revenues, operating expenses and operating earnings should not be viewed as a substitute for GAAP revenues, GAAP expenses and GAAP net income, respectively. Reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in “— Results of Operations.”

In the first quarter of 2011, management modified its definition of operating earnings to exclude impacts related to certain variable annuity guarantees and Market Value Adjustments to better conform to the way it manages and assesses its business. Accordingly, such results are no longer reported in operating earnings. Consequently, prior period results for Retirement Products and total consolidated operating earnings have been reduced by $2 million, net of $1 million of income tax, and $5 million, net of $3 million of income tax, for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively.

In this discussion, we sometimes refer to sales activity for various products. These sales statistics do not correspond to revenues under GAAP, but are used as relevant measures of business activity.

Business

The Company’s business is currently divided into three segments: Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding and Insurance Products. In addition, the Company reports certain of its results of operations in Corporate & Other.

Retirement Products offers asset accumulation and income products, including a wide variety of annuities. Corporate Benefit Funding offers pension risk solutions, structured settlements, stable value and investment products and other benefit funding products. Insurance Products offers a broad range of protection products and services to individuals and corporations, as well as other institutions and their respective employees, and is organized into two distinct businesses: Individual Life and Non-Medical Health. Individual Life insurance products and services include variable life, universal life, term life and whole life products. Non-Medical Health includes individual disability insurance products.

Corporate & Other contains the excess capital not allocated to the segments, various domestic and internationalstart-up entities and run-off business, the Company’s ancillary international operations, interest expense related to the majority of the Company’s outstanding debt and expenses associated with certain legal proceedings and income tax audit issues. Corporate & Other also includes the elimination of intersegment amounts.

Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to adopt accounting policies and make estimates and assumptions that affect amounts reported in the interim condensed consolidated financial statements. The most critical estimates include those used in determining:

(i)	the estimated fair value of investments in the absence of quoted market values;
(ii)	investment impairments;
(iii)	the recognition of income on certain investment entities and the application of the consolidation rules to certain investments;

99

(iv)	the estimated fair value of and accounting for freestanding derivatives and the existence and estimated fair value of embedded derivatives requiring bifurcation;
(v)	the capitalization and amortization of DAC and the establishment and amortization of VOBA;
(vi)	the measurement of goodwill and related impairment, if any;
(vii)	the liability for future policyholder benefits and the accounting for reinsurance contracts;
(viii)	accounting for income taxes and the valuation of deferred tax assets; and
(ix)	the liability for litigation and regulatory matters.

In applying the Company’s accounting policies, we make subjective and complex judgments that frequently require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain. Many of these policies, estimates and related judgments are common in the insurance and financial services industries; others are specific to the Company’s business and operations. Actual results could differ from these estimates.

The above critical accounting estimates are described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Summary of Critical Accounting Estimates” in the 2010 Annual Report and Note 1 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the 2010 Annual Report.

Economic Capital

Economic capital is an internally developed risk capital model, the purpose of which is to measure the risk in the business and to provide a basis upon which capital is deployed. The economic capital model accounts for the unique and specific nature of the risks inherent in MetLife’s business.

Effective January 1, 2011, MetLife updated its economic capital model to align segment allocated equity with emerging standards and consistent risk principles. Such changes to MetLife’s economic capital model are applied prospectively. Segment net investment income is also credited or charged based on the level of allocated equity; however, changes in allocated equity do not impact the Company’s consolidated net investment income, operating earnings or net income.

Results of Operations

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011 Compared with the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2010

Consolidated Results

We have experienced growth and an increase in market share in several of our businesses which positively impacted our results, most significantly through higher policy fee income. Sales of our annuity products were up 78%, driven by an increase in variable annuity sales compared with the prior period, which reflected the introduction of a new lower-risk variable annuity rider. We also benefited from increased issuances of funding agreements in the second quarter of 2011 and from increased sales, resulting in premiums of $191 million, before income tax, in our pension closeout business in the United Kingdom, which included a significant sale in the second quarter of 2011. Premiums associated with the pension closeout business can vary significantly from period to period. For the pension closeout businesses, the change in premiums is almost entirely offset by the related change in policyholder benefits. The insurance liability that is established at the time we assume the risk under these

100

contracts is typically equivalent to the premium recognized. We also continue to experience growth in our variable and universal life businesses.

	Nine Months
	Ended
	September 30,
	2011			2010			Change			% Change
	(In millions)
Revenues
Premiums	$	1,261		$	886		$	375			42.3	%
Universal life and investment-type product policy fees		1,435			1,178			257			21.8	%
Net investment income		2,235			2,338			(103	)		(4.4	)%
Other revenues		384			326			58			17.8	%
Net investment gains (losses)		17			96			(79	)		(82.3	)%
Net derivative gains (losses)		859			292			567			194.2	%
Total revenues		6,191			5,116			1,075			21.0	%
Expenses
Policyholder benefits and claims		1,882			1,582			300			19.0	%
Interest credited to policyholder account balances		753			913			(160	)		(17.5	)%
Capitalization of DAC		(1,078	)		(680	)		(398	)		(58.5	)%
Amortization of DAC and VOBA		1,002			743			259			34.9	%
Interest expense on debt		329			357			(28	)		(7.8	)%
Other expenses		1,970			1,437			533			37.1	%
Total expenses		4,858			4,352			506			11.6	%
Income (loss) before provision for income tax		1,333			764			569			74.5	%
Provision for income tax expense (benefit)		412			245			167			68.2	%
Net income	$	921		$	519		$	402			77.5	%

Unless otherwise stated, all amounts discussed below are net of income tax.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2011, net income increased $402 million to $921 million primarily driven by increased derivative gains, net of related adjustments, principally associated with DAC and VOBA amortization, and an increase in operating earnings.

We manage our investment portfolio using disciplined Asset/Liability Management principles, focusing on cash flow and duration to support our current and future liabilities. Our intent is to match the timing and amount of liability cash outflows with invested assets that have cash inflows of comparable timing and amount, while optimizing, net of income tax, risk-adjusted net investment income and risk-adjusted total return. Our investment portfolio is heavily weighted toward fixed income investments, with over 80% of our portfolio invested in fixed maturity securities and mortgage loans. These securities and loans have varying maturities and other characteristics which cause them to be generally well suited for matching the cash flow and duration of insurance liabilities. Other invested asset classes including, but not limited to, equity securities, other limited partnership interests and real estate and real estate joint ventures, provide additional diversification and opportunity for long-term yield enhancement in addition to supporting the cash flow and duration objectives of our investment portfolio. We also use derivatives as an integral part of our management of the investment portfolio to hedge certain risks, including changes in interest rates, foreign currencies, credit spreads and equity market levels. Additional considerations for our investment portfolio include current and expected market conditions and expectations for changes within our specific mix of products and business segments. In addition, the general account investment portfolio includes, within other securities, contractholder-directed investments supporting unit-linked variable annuity type liabilities, which do not qualify as separate account assets. The returns on thesecontractholder-directed investments, which can vary significantly period to period, include changes in estimated fair value subsequent to purchase, inure to contractholders and are offset in earnings by a corresponding change in policyholder account balances through interest credited to policyholder account balances.

101

The composition of the investment portfolio of each business segment is tailored to the specific characteristics of its insurance liabilities, causing certain portfolios to be shorter in duration and others to be longer in duration. Accordingly, certain portfolios are more heavily weighted in longer duration, higher yielding fixed maturity securities, or certainsub-sectors of fixed maturity securities, than other portfolios.

Investments are purchased to support our insurance liabilities and not to generate net investment gains and losses. However, net investment gains and losses are generated and can change significantly from period to period due to changes in external influences, including changes in market factors such as interest rates, foreign currencies, credit spreads and equity markets, counterparty specific factors such as financial performance, credit rating and collateral valuation, and internal factors such as portfolio rebalancing. Changes in these factors from period to period can significantly impact the levels of both impairments and realized gains and losses on investments sold.

We use freestanding equity, interest rate, currency and credit derivatives to provide economic hedges of certain invested assets and insurance liabilities, including embedded derivatives, within certain of our variable annuity minimum benefit guarantees. For those hedges not designated as accounting hedges, changes in market factors can lead to the recognition of fair value changes in net derivative gains (losses) without an offsetting gain or loss recognized in earnings for the item being hedged even though these are effective economic hedges. Additionally, we issue liabilities and purchase assets that contain embedded derivatives whose changes in estimated fair value are sensitive to changes in market factors and are also recognized in net derivative gains (losses).

The favorable change in net derivative gains (losses) of $368 million, from gains of $190 million in the 2010 period to gains of $558 million in the 2011 period, was primarily driven by a favorable change in freestanding derivatives of $421 million, partially offset by an unfavorable change in embedded derivatives of $57 million primarily associated with variable annuity minimum benefit guarantees. The $421 million favorable change in freestanding derivatives was primarily attributable to the impact of falling long-term interest rates and equity market movements and volatility. Long-term interest rates fell more in the current period than in the prior period, which had a positive impact of $274 million on our interest rate derivatives, $64 million of which was attributable to hedges of variable annuity minimum benefit guarantee liabilities that are accounted for as embedded derivatives. The impact of equity market movements and equity volatility in the current period compared to the prior period had a positive impact of $124 million on our equity derivatives, which was primarily attributable to hedges of variable annuity minimum benefit guarantee liabilities that are accounted for as embedded derivatives. Foreign currency derivatives had a positive impact of $31 million related to hedges of foreign currency exposures.

Certain variable annuity products with minimum benefit guarantees contain embedded derivatives that are measured at estimated fair value separately from the host variable annuity contract with changes in estimated fair value recorded in net derivative gains (losses). The fair value of these embedded derivatives also includes an adjustment for nonperformance risk, which is unhedged. The $57 million unfavorable change in embedded derivatives was primarily attributable to an unfavorable change in market factors on direct liabilities of $597 million, an unfavorable change in the adjustment for the reinsurer’s nonperformance risk of $386 million and an unfavorable change in other unhedged non-market risks of $161 million on the direct liabilities, partially offset by a favorable change in ceded affiliated reinsurance assets of $826 million and a favorable change in the adjustment for nonperformance risk of $261 million on direct liabilities. The foregoing $261 million favorable change in the adjustment for nonperformance risk was net of a prior period loss of $256 million relating to a refinement in estimating the spreads used in the adjustment for nonperformance risk. The aforementioned favorable change in the adjustment for the reinsurer’s nonperformance risk of $386 million was net of a prior period gain of $380 million relating to a refinement in estimating the spreads used in the adjustment for nonperformance risk.

The unfavorable change in net investment gains of $51 million was primarily due to increased foreign currency transaction losses on unhedged foreign denominated guaranteed investment contracts, increased impairments and realized losses on sales of equity securities and decreased realized gains on sales of fixed maturity securities, partially offset by a reduction in the non-specific mortgage valuation allowance reflecting improving real estate market fundamentals. An increase inother-than-temporary impairment losses on equity securities in the financial sector primarily reflects impairments on securities the Company intends to sell driven by the repositioning of the portfolio to diversify and extend duration, which were partially offset by decreased impairments on structured securities reflecting improved economic fundamentals.

102

Income tax expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 was $412 million, or 31% of income before provision for income tax, compared with $245 million, or 32% of income before provision for income tax, for the comparable 2010 period. The Company’s 2011 and 2010 effective tax rates differ from the U.S. statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the impact of certain permanent tax differences, including non-taxable investment income and tax credits for investments in low income housing, in relation to income before income tax.

As more fully described in the discussion of performance measures above, we use operating earnings, which does not equate to net income as determined in accordance with GAAP, to analyze our performance, evaluate segment performance, and allocate resources. We believe that the presentation of operating earnings, as we measure it for management purposes, enhances the understanding of our performance by highlighting the results of operations and the underlying profitability drivers of the business. Operating earnings should not be viewed as a substitute for GAAP net income. Operating earnings increased $203 million to $615 million in the first nine months of 2011 from $412 million in the comparable 2010 period.

Reconciliation of net income to operating earnings

	Nine Months
	Ended
	September 30,
	2011			2010
	(In millions)
Net income	$	921		$	519
Less: Net investment gains (losses)		17			96
Less: Net derivative gains (losses)		859			292
Less: Other adjustments to net income (1)		(408	)		(222	)
Less: Provision for income tax (expense) benefit		(162	)		(59	)
Operating earnings	$	615		$	412

(1) See definitions of operating revenues and operating expenses for the components of such adjustments.

Reconciliation of GAAP revenues to operating revenues and GAAP expenses to operating expenses

	Nine Months
	Ended
	September 30,
	2011		2010
	(In millions)
Total revenues	$	6,191	$	5,116
Less: Net investment gains (losses)		17		96
Less: Net derivative gains (losses)		859		292
Less: Adjustments related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses)		10		2
Less: Other adjustments to revenues (1)		193		337
Total operating revenues	$	5,112	$	4,389
Total expenses	$	4,858	$	4,352
Less: Adjustments related to net investment gains (losses) and net derivative gains (losses)		369		185
Less: Other adjustments to expenses (1)		242		376
Total operating expenses	$	4,247	$	3,791

(1) See definitions of operating revenues and operating expenses for the components of such adjustments.

Unless otherwise stated, all amounts discussed below are net of income tax.

103

The $203 million increase in operating earnings was primarily driven by increased policy fee income as growth in the variable annuity business and the improvement in the financial markets (despite the equity market declines in the third quarter of 2011) drove a higher level of average separate account balances.

The increase in average separate account balances was largely attributable to positive net cash flows from the annuity business and favorable equity market performance in the previous three quarters. The decline in the equity market performance in the current quarter caused a decrease in the average separate account balances, which was largely offset by positive equity market performance from the previous three quarters. This resulted in higher policy fees and other revenues of $176 million, most notably in Retirement Products. Policy fees are typically calculated as a percentage of the average assets in the separate accounts.

Positive net cash flows generated from the majority of our businesses was also the primary driver of the $36 million increase in net investment income, which resulted from $86 million being generated from growth in average invested assets, partially offset by a $50 million decrease from lower yields. Growth in the investment portfolio was primarily invested in fixed maturity securities, mortgage loans and other limited partnership interests. Yields were negatively impacted by lower fixed maturity securities yields due to new investment and reinvestment during this lower interest rate environment. These decreases in yields were partially offset by improved securities lending returns in addition to increased real estate joint venture yields as a result of the positive effects of improving real estate markets period over period and an increase in mortgage loan prepayments. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2010, investment earnings and interest credited related to contractholder-directed unit-linked investments are excluded from operating revenues and operating expenses, as the contractholder, and not the Company, directs the investment of the funds. This change in presentation had no impact on operating earnings in the current period; however, it unfavorably impacted the change in net investment income in the current period, when compared to the prior period, as positive returns were incurred in the first nine months of 2010 from recovering equity markets. The corresponding favorable impact is reflected in interest credited expense.

In addition, we benefited from a higher income tax benefit of $29 million over the 2010 period, primarily due to a higher utilization of tax preferenced investments which provide tax credits and deductions. Also, a $15 million increase in other revenues was primarily driven by an increase in a deposit receivable from an affiliated reinsurance treaty in the current period.

Liability refinements in the current period resulted in a $10 million increase in operating earnings. Claims experience varied amongst our businesses and essentially had no effect on operating earnings.

Business growth, specifically in our annuity business, was the primary driver of the increase in variable expenses, such as commissions and premium taxes, which accounted for $261 million of the $333 million increase in our other operating expenses. The majority of the increase in variable expenses was offset by DAC capitalization. Additionally, higher market driven expenses of $25 million, such as letter of credit fees, contributed to this increase. The Company also incurred $17 million of expenses related to a liquidation plan filed by the New York State Department of Financial Services for Executive Life Insurance Company of New York in the current period.

DAC, VOBA and deferred sales inducements amortization increased $60 million during the first nine months of 2011 compared to the prior year, most notably in Retirement Products. During the third quarter of 2011, results reflected increased or accelerated amortization primarily stemming from a substantial decline in the market value of our separate account balances, which more than offset the growth experienced during the first six months of 2011. A factor that determines the amount of amortization is expected future earnings which, in the retirement business, are derived, in part, from the fees earned on separate account balances. The decline in the market value of our separate account balances during the third quarter of 2011 resulted in a decrease in the expected future gross profits, triggering an acceleration of amortization.

Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 1 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

104

Future Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 1 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, which includes information on new guidance regarding accounting for DAC.

Item 4.  Controls and Procedures

Management, with the participation of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as defined inRule 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”), as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective.

There were no changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as defined in Exchange ActRule 15d-15(f) during the three months ended September 30, 2011 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Part II — Other Information

Item 1.  Legal Proceedings

The following should be read in conjunction with (i) Part I, Item 3, of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “2010 Annual Report”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (ii) Part II, Item 1, of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011; and (iii) Note 5 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I of this report.

Unclaimed Property Inquiries

More than 30 U.S. jurisdictions are auditing MetLife, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, including MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, for compliance with unclaimed property laws. Additionally, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and certain of its affiliates have received subpoenas and other regulatory inquiries from certain regulators and other officials relating to claims-payment practices and compliance with unclaimed property laws. An examination of these practices by the Illinois Department of Insurance has been converted into a multistate targeted market conduct exam. On July 5, 2011, the New York Insurance Department issued a letter requiring life insurers doing business in New York to use data available on the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File or a similar database to identify instances where death benefits under life insurance policies, annuities, and retained asset accounts are payable, to locate and pay beneficiaries under such contracts, and to report the results of the use of the data. It is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar investigations or inquiries, may join the multistate market conduct exam, or issue directives similar to the New York Insurance Department’s letter. It is possible that the audits, market conduct exam, and related activity may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, administrative penalties, interest and changes to the Company’s procedures for the identification and escheatment of abandoned property. The Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible amount of any such additional payments or the reasonably possible cost of any such changes in procedures.

Summary

Various litigation, claims and assessments against the Company, in addition to those discussed previously and those otherwise provided for in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, have arisen in the course of the Company’s business, including, but not limited to, in connection with its activities as an insurer, employer, investor, investment advisor and taxpayer. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning the Company’s compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations.

105

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations and legal proceedings. In some of the matters referred to previously, largeand/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Although in light of these considerations it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known by the Company’s management, in its opinion, the outcomes of such pending investigations and legal proceedings are not likely to have such an effect. However, given the largeand/or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated net income or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The following, together with the information under “Risk Factors” in Part II, Item 1A, of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Quarterly Reports onForm 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2011 and June 30, 2011, which is incorporated herein by reference, should be read in conjunction with, and supplements and amends, the factors that may affect the Company’s business or operations described under “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A, of the 2010 Annual Report.

Difficult Conditions in the Global Capital Markets and the Economy Generally May Materially Adversely Affect Our Business and Results of Operations and These Conditions May Not Improve in the Near Future

Our business and results of operations are materially affected by conditions in the global capital markets and the economy, generally, both in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world. Stressed conditions, volatility and disruptions in global capital markets, particular markets, or financial asset classes can have an adverse effect on us, in part because we have a large investment portfolio and our insurance liabilities are sensitive to changing market factors. Disruptions in one market or asset class can also spread to other markets or asset classes. Upheavals in the financial markets can also affect our business through their effects on general levels of economic activity, employment and customer behavior.

Volatile conditions have continued to characterize financial markets at times, and not all global financial markets are functioning normally. Significant market volatility, and government actions taken in response, may exacerbate some of the risks discussed in reports we file with the SEC. The global recession and disruption of the financial markets has led to concerns over capital markets access and the solvency of certain European Union member states, including Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain, and of financial institutions that have significant direct or indirect exposure to debt issued by these countries. Certain of the major rating agencies have downgraded the sovereign debt of Greece, Portugal and Ireland to below investment grade. The sovereign debt of Italy and Spain were also recently downgraded. These ratings downgrades and implementation of European Union and private sector support programs have increased concerns that other European Union member states could experience similar financial troubles. The Japanese economy, to which MetLife, Inc. faces substantial exposure given its operations there, has been significantly negatively impacted by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Disruptions to the Japanese economy are having, and will continue to have, negative impacts on the overall global economy, not all of which can be foreseen. Although the recent downgrade by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”) of U.S. Treasury securities initially had an adverse effect on financial markets, the extent of the longer-term impact cannot be predicted. It is possible that the downgrade and continued concerns about U.S. fiscal policy and the trajectory of the national debt of the U.S. could have severe repercussions to the U.S. and global credit and financial markets, further exacerbate concerns over sovereign debt of other countries and could disrupt economic activity in the U.S. and elsewhere. See “— Concerns over U.S. Fiscal Policy and the Trajectory of the National Debt of the U.S., as well as Rating Agency Downgrades of U.S. Treasury Securities, Could Have an Adverse Effect on Our Business, Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Our revenues and net investment income are likely to remain under pressure in such circumstances and our profit margins could erode. Also, in the event of extreme prolonged market events, such as the recent global credit crisis, we could incur significant capitaland/or operating losses. Even in the absence of a market downturn, we are exposed to substantial risk of loss due to market volatility.

106

We are a significant writer of variable insurance products and certain other products issued through separate accounts. The account values of these products decrease as a result of downturns in capital markets. Decreases in account values reduce fees generated by these products, cause the amortization of deferred policy acquisition costs (“DAC”) to accelerate and could increase the level of insurance liabilities we must carry to support such products issued with any associated guarantees.

Factors such as consumer spending, business investment, government spending, the volatility and strength of the capital markets, deflation and inflation all affect the business and economic environment and, ultimately, the amount and profitability of our business. In an economic downturn characterized by higher unemployment, lower family income, lower corporate earnings, lower business investment and lower consumer spending, the demand for our financial and insurance products could be adversely affected. Group insurance, in particular, is affected by the higher unemployment rate. In addition, we may experience an elevated incidence of claims and lapses or surrenders of policies. Our policyholders may choose to defer paying insurance premiums or stop paying insurance premiums altogether. Adverse changes in the economy could affect earnings negatively and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. The recent financial crisis has precipitated, and may continue to raise the possibility of, legislative, regulatory and governmental actions. We cannot predict whether or when such actions may occur, or what impact, if any, such actions could have on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “— Actions of the U.S. Government, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Other Governmental and Regulatory Bodies for the Purpose of Stabilizing and Revitalizing the Financial Markets and Protecting Investors and Consumers May Not Achieve the Intended Effect or Could Adversely Affect the Competitive Position of MetLife, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries, Including Us,” “— Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth” and “— Various Aspects of Dodd-Frank Could Impact Our Business Operations, Capital Requirements and Profitability and Limit Our Growth,” and “Risk Factors — Competitive Factors May Adversely Affect Our Market Share and Profitability” in the 2010 Annual Report.

Concerns Over U.S. Fiscal Policy and the Trajectory of the National Debt of the U.S., as well as Rating Agency Downgrades of U.S. Treasury Securities, Could Have an Adverse Effect on Our Business, Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Concerns over U.S. fiscal policy and the trajectory of the national debt could have severe repercussions to the U.S. and global credit and financial markets, further exacerbate concerns over sovereign debt of other countries and could disrupt economic activity in the U.S. and elsewhere. As a result, our access to, or cost of, liquidity may deteriorate.

In August 2011, S&P downgraded the AAA rating on U.S. Treasury securities to AA+ with a negative outlook, while Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) affirmed the Aaa rating on U.S. Treasury securities, but with a negative outlook. Fitch Ratings affirmed its AAA rating on U.S. Treasury securities and kept its outlook stable. In October 2011, Moody’s affirmed its August 2011 ratings, but revised its negative outlook to stable.

As a result, the market value of some of our investments is likely to decrease, and our capital adequacy could be adversely affected, which could require us to raise additional capital during a period of distress in financial markets, potentially at a higher cost. Further downgrades, together with the sustained current trajectory of the national debt of the U.S., would significantly exacerbate the risks we face and any resulting adverse effects on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including those described under “— Difficult Conditions in the Global Capital Markets and the Economy Generally May Materially Adversely Affect Our Business and Results of Operations and These Conditions May Not Improve in the Near Future” and “Risk Factors — Adverse Capital and Credit Market Conditions May Significantly Affect Our Ability to Meet Liquidity Needs, Access to Capital and Cost of Capital,” “Risk Factors — Our Participation in a Securities Lending Program Subjects Us to Potential Liquidity and Other Risks” and “Risk Factors — The Determination of the Amount of Allowances and Impairments Taken on Our Investments is Highly Subjective and Could Materially Impact Our Results of Operations or Financial Position” in the 2010 Annual Report. We cannot predict whether or when these adverse consequences may occur, what other unforeseen consequences may result, or the extent, severity and duration of the impact of such consequences on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

107

Actions of the U.S. Government, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Other Governmental and Regulatory Bodies for the Purpose of Stabilizing and Revitalizing the Financial Markets and Protecting Investors and Consumers May Not Achieve the Intended Effect or Could Adversely Affect the Competitive Position of MetLife, Inc. and Its Subsidiaries, Including Us

In recent years, Congress, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the U.S. Treasury and other agencies of the U.S. federal government have taken a number of increasingly aggressive actions (in addition to continuing a series of interest rate reductions that began in the second half of 2007) intended to provide liquidity to financial institutions and markets, to avert a loss of investor confidence in particular troubled institutions, to prevent or contain the spread of the financial crisis and to spur economic growth. Most of these programs have largely run their course or been discontinued. More likely to be relevant to us is the monetary policy implemented by the Federal Reserve Board and the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”), which will significantly change financial regulation in the U.S. in a number of areas that could affect MetLife and its subsidiaries, including us. Given the large number of provisions of Dodd-Frank that must be implemented through regulatory action and the delay with which some aspects of this implementation are taking place, as well as MetLife, Inc.’s announced intention to sell MetLife Bank, National Association’s (“MetLife Bank”) depository and forward mortgage origination businesses, relinquish its bank charter (subject to regulatory approval) and, as a result, no longer be regulated as a bank holding company, we cannot predict what impact this could have on our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “— Various Aspects of Dodd-Frank Could Impact Our Business Operations, Capital Requirements and Profitability and Limit Our Growth.”

In September 2011, the Federal Open Market Committee announced a program, known as “Operation Twist,” to purchase, by the end of June 2012, $400 billion in par value of U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities of six to 30 years and to sell, over the same period, an equal par value of U.S. Treasury securities with remaining maturities of three years or less. By reducing the supply of longer-term securities in the market, this action is intended to put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates relative to levels that would otherwise prevail. The reduction in longer-term interest rates, in turn, is intended to contribute to a broad easing of financial market conditions that could provide additional stimulus to support the economic recovery. There can be no assurance that Operation Twist will have the intended effect or what impact, if any, this program could have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We cannot predict whether the funds made available by the U.S. federal government and its agencies will be enough to continue stabilizing or to further revive the financial markets or, if additional amounts are necessary, whether the Federal Reserve Board will make funds available, and whether Congress will be willing to make the necessary appropriations to counteract any weakness in employment or other aspects of the overall economy.

The choices made by the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC in their distribution of funds under any future asset purchase programs, as well as any decisions made regarding the imposition of additional regulation on large financial institutions may have, over time, the effect of supporting or burdening some aspects of the financial services industry more than others. Some of our competitors have received, or may in the future receive, benefits under one or more of the federal government’s programs. This could adversely affect our competitive position. See “— Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth,” as well as “Risk Factors — Competitive Factors May Adversely Affect Our Market Share and Profitability” and “Risk Factors — New and Impending Compensation and Corporate Governance Regulations Could Hinder or Prevent MetLife and Its Affiliates From Attracting and Retaining Management and Other Employees with the Talent and Experience to Manage and Conduct Our Business Effectively” in the 2010 Annual Report.

Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses Are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth

Insurance Regulation — U.S.  Our insurance operations are subject to a wide variety of insurance and other laws and regulations. See “Business — Regulation — Insurance Regulation” in the 2010 Annual Report. State insurance laws regulate most aspects of our U.S. insurance businesses, and our insurance subsidiaries are regulated by the insurance departments of the states in which they are domiciled and the states in which they are licensed.

108

State laws in the U.S. grant insurance regulatory authorities broad administrative powers with respect to, among other things:

•  licensing companies and agents to transact business;

•  calculating the value of assets to determine compliance with statutory requirements;

•  mandating certain insurance benefits;

•  regulating certain premium rates;

•  reviewing and approving policy forms;

•  regulating unfair trade and claims practices, including through the imposition of restrictions on marketing and sales practices, distribution arrangements and payment of inducements;

•  regulating advertising;

•  protecting privacy;

•  establishing statutory capital and reserve requirements and solvency standards;

•  fixing maximum interest rates on insurance policy loans and minimum rates for guaranteed crediting rates on life insurance policies and annuity contracts;

•  approving changes in control of insurance companies;

•  restricting the payment of dividends and other transactions between affiliates; and

•  regulating the types, amounts and valuation of investments.

State insurance guaranty associations have the right to assess insurance companies doing business in their state for funds to help pay the obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants. Because the amount and timing of an assessment is beyond our control, the liabilities that we have currently established for these potential liabilities may not be adequate. See “Business — Regulation — Insurance Regulation — Guaranty Associations and Similar Arrangements” in the 2010 Annual Report.

State insurance regulators and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners regularly re-examine existing laws and regulations applicable to insurance companies and their products. Changes in these laws and regulations, or in interpretations thereof, that are made for the benefit of the consumer sometimes lead to additional expense for the insurer and, thus, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

U.S. Federal Regulation Affecting Insurance.  Currently, the U.S. federal government does not directly regulate the business of insurance. However, Dodd-Frank allows federal regulators to compel state insurance regulators to liquidate an insolvent insurer under some circumstances if the state regulators have not acted within a specific period. It also establishes the Federal Insurance Office, which has the authority to participate in the negotiations of international insurance agreements with foreign regulators for the U.S., as well as to collect information about the insurance industry and recommend prudential standards.

Federal legislation and administrative policies in several areas can significantly and adversely affect insurance companies. These areas include financial services regulation, securities regulation, derivatives regulation, mortgage regulation, pension regulation, health care regulation, privacy, tort reform legislation and taxation. In addition, various forms of direct and indirect federal regulation of insurance have been proposed from time to time, including proposals for the establishment of an optional federal charter for insurance companies. Other aspects of our insurance operations could also be affected by Dodd-Frank. For example, Dodd-Frank imposes new restrictions on the ability of affiliates of insured depository institutions (such as MetLife Bank) to engage in proprietary trading or sponsor or invest in hedge funds or private equity funds. See ‘‘— Various Aspects of Dodd-Frank Could Impact Our Business Operations, Capital Requirements and Profitability and Limit Our Growth.”

Regulation of Brokers and Dealers.  Dodd-Frank also authorizes the SEC to establish a standard of conduct applicable to brokers and dealers when providing personalized investment advice to retail and other customers. This

109

standard of conduct would be to act in the best interest of the customer without regard to the financial or other interest of the broker or dealer providing the advice. See “Risk Factors — Changes in U.S. Federal and State Securities Laws and Regulations, and State Insurance Regulations Regarding Suitability of Annuity Product Sales, May Affect Our Operations and Our Profitability” in the 2010 Annual Report.

Non-U.S. Regulation.  Our non-U.S. insurance operations are principally regulated by insurance regulatory authorities in the jurisdictions in which they are domiciled or operate and are subject to local laws and regulations. The authority of our international operations to conduct business is subject to licensing requirements, permits and approvals, and these authorizations are subject to modification and revocation. See “Risk Factors — Our International Operations Face Political, Legal, Operational and Other Risks, Including Exposure to Local and Regional Economic Conditions, That Could Negatively Affect Those Operations or Our Profitability” in the 2010 Annual Report.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is time consuming and personnel-intensive, and changes in these laws and regulations may materially increase our direct and indirect compliance and other expenses of doing business, thus having a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

From time to time, regulators raise issues during examinations or audits of us and our regulated subsidiaries that could, if determined adversely, have a material impact on us. We cannot predict whether or when regulatory actions may be taken that could adversely affect our operations. In addition, the interpretations of regulations by regulators may change and statutes may be enacted with retroactive impact, particularly in areas such as accounting or statutory reserve requirements. We are also subject to other regulations and may in the future become subject to additional regulations. See “Business — Regulation” in the 2010 Annual Report.

Various Aspects of Dodd-Frank Could Impact Our Business Operations, Capital Requirements and Profitability and Limit Our Growth

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed Dodd-Frank. Various provisions of Dodd-Frank could affect our business operations, capital requirements and profitability and limit our growth. For example:

•  As a large, interconnected bank holding company with assets of $50 billion or more, or possibly as an otherwise systemically important financial institution, MetLife, Inc., including possibly its subsidiaries, will be subject to enhanced prudential standards imposed on such companies. Enhanced standards could be applied to risk-based capital (“RBC”), liquidity, leverage (unless another, similar, standard is appropriate), resolution plan and credit exposure reporting, concentration limits, and risk management. Off-balance sheet activities are required to be accounted for in meeting capital requirements. In addition, if it were determined that MetLife, Inc. posed a substantial threat to U.S. financial stability, the applicable federal regulators would have the right to require it and/or its affiliates to take one or more other mitigating actions to reduce that risk, including limiting its ability to merge with or acquire another company, terminating activities, restricting its ability to offer financial products or requiring it to sell assets or off-balance sheet items to unaffiliated entities. Enhanced standards would also permit, but not require, regulators to establish requirements with respect to contingent capital, enhanced public disclosures and short-term debt limits. These standards are described as being more stringent than those otherwise imposed on bank holding companies; however, the Federal Reserve Board is permitted to apply them on aninstitution-by-institution basis, depending on its determination of the institution’s riskiness.

•  MetLife, Inc., as a bank holding company, will have to meet minimum leverage ratio and RBC requirements on a consolidated basis to be established by the Federal Reserve Board that are not less than those applicable to insured depository institutions under so-called prompt corrective action regulations as in effect on the date of the enactment of Dodd-Frank. As a subsidiary of a bank holding company, we, as well as MetLife, Inc.,

110

could be subject to other heightened standards, even if MetLife, Inc. is not deemed to be a systemically important financial institution.

•  Under the provisions of Dodd-Frank relating to the resolution or liquidation of certain types of financial institutions, including bank holding companies, if MetLife, Inc. were to become insolvent or were in danger of defaulting on its obligations, it could be compelled to undergo liquidation with the FDIC as receiver. For this new regime to be applicable, a number of determinations would have to be made, including that a default by the affected company would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the U.S. If the FDIC were to be appointed as the receiver for such a company, the liquidation of that company would occur under the provisions of the new liquidation authority, and not under the Bankruptcy Code. In such a liquidation, the holders of such company’s debt could in certain respects be treated differently than under the Bankruptcy Code. In particular, unsecured creditors and shareholders are intended to bear the losses of the company being liquidated. As required by Dodd-Frank, the FDIC has established rules relating to the priority of creditors’ claims and the potentially dissimilar treatment of similarly situated creditors. These provisions could apply to some financial institutions whose outstanding debt securities we hold in our investment portfolios. Dodd-Frank also provides for the assessment of bank holding companies with assets of $50 billion or more, non-bank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (collectively, the “Federal Reserve”), and other financial companies with assets of $50 billion or more to cover the costs of liquidating any financial company subject to the new liquidation authority. In addition, regulations have been proposed by the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board regarding the advance preparation of resolution plans by companies potentially subject to the FDIC’s liquidation authority. Although it is not possible to assess the full impact of the liquidation authority at this time, it could affect the funding costs of large bank holding companies or financial companies that might be viewed as systemically significant. It could also lead to an increase in secured financings.

•  Dodd-Frank also includes a new framework of regulation of theover-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives markets which will require clearing of certain types of transactions currently traded OTC and could potentially impose additional costs, including new capital, reporting and margin requirements and additional regulation on the Company. Increased margin requirements on our part, combined with restrictions on securities that will qualify as eligible collateral, could reduce our liquidity and require an increase in our holdings of cash and government securities with lower yields causing a reduction in income. We use derivatives to mitigate a wide range of risks in connection with our businesses, including the impact of increased benefit exposures from our annuity products that offer guaranteed benefits. The derivative clearing requirements of Dodd-Frank could increase the cost of our risk mitigation and expose us to the risk of a default by a clearinghouse with respect to our cleared derivative transactions. In addition, we have always been subject to the risk that hedging and other management procedures might prove ineffective in reducing the risks to which insurance policies expose us or that unanticipated policyholder behavior or mortality, combined with adverse market events, produces economic losses beyond the scope of the risk management techniques employed. Any such losses could be increased by higher costs of writing derivatives (including customized derivatives) that might result from the enactment of Dodd-Frank.

•  Dodd-Frank restricts the ability of insured depository institutions and of companies, such as MetLife, Inc., that control an insured depository institution, and their affiliates, to engage in proprietary trading and to sponsor or invest in funds (hedge funds and private equity funds) that rely on certain exemptions from the Investment Company Act. Dodd-Frank provides an exemption for investment activity by a regulated insurance company or its affiliates solely for the general account of such insurance company if such activity is in compliance with the insurance company investment laws of the state or jurisdiction in which such company is domiciled and the appropriate Federal regulators after consultation with relevant insurance commissioners have not jointly determined such laws to be insufficient to protect the safety and soundness of the institution or the financial stability of the U.S. Other exemptions, including, but not limited to, activities for risk-mitigating hedging and activities on behalf of customers, may be available for the general account or separate account activities of insurance companies. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the appropriate Federal regulatory authorities are permitted under the legislation to impose, as part of rulemaking, additional capital requirements and other restrictions on any exempted activity. Dodd-Frank provides for a period of

111

rule-making during which the effects of the statutory language may be clarified. Among other things, one task of the rule-making is to appropriately accommodate the business of insurance within an insurance company subject to regulation in accordance with relevant insurance company investments laws. Until therule-making is complete, including the scope of the statutory exemptions to be applied to insurance companies for each of the prohibitions on proprietary trading and fund sponsoring or investing, it is unclear whether we may have to alter any of our future activities to comply, including continuing to invest in private investment funds for our general accounts or to issue certain insurance products backed by our separate accounts.

•  Until the various final regulations are promulgated pursuant to Dodd-Frank, and perhaps for some time thereafter, the full impact of Dodd-Frank on the investments and investment activities, banking activities and insurance and annuity products of MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including us, will remain unclear. For example, besides directly limiting our future investment activities, Dodd-Frank could potentially negatively impact the market for, the returns from, or liquidity in, primary and secondary investments in private equity funds and hedge funds that are related to (either through a fund sponsorship or investor relationship) a company affiliated with an insured depository institution. The number of sponsors of such funds going forward may diminish, which may impact our available fund investment opportunities. Although Dodd-Frank provides for various transition periods for coming into compliance, fund sponsors that are subject toDodd-Frank, and in whose funds we have invested, may have to divest their funds business or reduce their ownership stakes in their funds, thereby potentially impacting our related investments in such funds. In addition, should such funds be required or choose to liquidate or sell their underlying assets, the market value and liquidity of such assets or the broader related asset classes could negatively be affected, including securities and real estate assets that MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries hold or may plan to sell. Secondary sales of fund interests at significant discounts by banking institutions and their affiliates, which are not fund sponsors but nevertheless are subject to the divestment requirements of Dodd-Frank, could reduce the returns realized by investors such as MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries seeking to access liquidity by selling their fund interests. Reduced income to MetLife, Inc. from such investment activities could affect its ability to provide funding to us. In addition, our existing derivatives counterparties and the financial institutions subject to Dodd-Frank in which we have invested also could be negatively impacted by Dodd-Frank. See “Risk Factors — New and Impending Compensation and Corporate Governance Regulations Could Hinder or Prevent MetLife and Its Affiliates From Attracting and Retaining Management and Other Employees with the Talent and Experience to Manage and Conduct Our Business Effectively” in the 2010 Annual Report. Finally, rulemaking mandated by Dodd-Frank to define the scope of the term “swap,” and the extent to which insurance products may or may not be excluded from the definition of a swap, could impact a number of categories of insurance products issued and sold by MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including stable value products.

The addition of a new regulatory regime over MetLife, Inc. and its subsidiaries, the likelihood of additional regulations, and the other changes discussed above could require changes to the operations of MetLife and its subsidiaries, including us and our subsidiaries. Whether such changes would affect our competitiveness in comparison to other institutions is uncertain, since it is possible that at least some of our competitors, for example insurance holding companies that control thrifts, rather than banks, will be similarly affected. Competitive effects are possible, however, if MetLife, Inc. were required to pay any new or increased assessments and additional capital requirements are imposed, and to the extent any new prudential supervisory standards are imposed on MetLife, Inc. but not on its competitors. The impact could be different if MetLife, Inc. is able to implement its plans to sell its depository and forward mortgage origination businesses, relinquish the MetLife Bank charter (subject to regulatory approval), and no longer be subject to regulation as a bank holding company, although it could still be subject to enhanced supervision as a systemically important non-bank financial institution. We cannot predict whether other proposals will be adopted, or what impact, if any, the adoption of Dodd-Frank or other proposals and the resulting studies and regulations could have on our business, financial condition or results of operations or on our dealings with other financial companies. See also “— Our Insurance and Brokerage Businesses are Highly Regulated, and Changes in Regulation May Reduce Our Profitability and Limit Our Growth” and “Risk Factors — New and Impending Compensation and Corporate Governance Regulations Could Hinder or Prevent MetLife and Its Affiliates From Attracting and Retaining Management and Other Employees with the Talent and Experience to Manage and Conduct Our Business Effectively” in the 2010 Annual Report.

112

Moreover, Dodd-Frank potentially affects such a wide range of the activities and markets in which we engage and participate that it may not be possible to anticipate all of the ways in which it could affect us. For example, many of our methods for managing risk and exposures are based upon the use of observed historical market behavior or statistics based on historical models. Historical market behavior may be altered by the enactment of Dodd-Frank. As a result of this enactment and otherwise, these methods may not fully predict future exposures, which could be significantly greater than our historical measures indicate.

Changes in Market Interest Rates May Significantly Affect Our Profitability

Some of our products, principally traditional whole life insurance, fixed annuities and guaranteed interest contracts, expose us to the risk that changes in interest rates will reduce our investment margin or “spread,” or the difference between the amounts that we are required to pay under the contracts in our general account and the rate of return we are able to earn on general account investments intended to support obligations under the contracts. Our spread is a key component of our net income.

As interest rates decrease or remain at low levels, we may be forced to reinvest proceeds from investments that have matured or have been prepaid or sold at lower yields, reducing our investment margin. Moreover, borrowers may prepay or redeem the fixed income securities, commercial or agricultural mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities in our investment portfolio with greater frequency in order to borrow at lower market rates, which exacerbates this risk. Lowering interest crediting rates can help offset decreases in investment margins on some products. However, our ability to lower these rates could be limited by competition or contractually guaranteed minimum rates and may not match the timing or magnitude of changes in asset yields. As a result, our spread could decrease or potentially become negative. Our expectation for future spreads is an important component in the amortization of DAC and value of business acquired (“VOBA”), and significantly lower spreads may cause us to accelerate amortization, thereby reducing net income in the affected reporting period. In addition, during periods of declining interest rates, 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 our new investments carry lower returns. A decline in market interest rates could also reduce our return on investments that do not support particular policy obligations. Accordingly, declining interest rates may materially affect our results of operations, financial position and cash flows and significantly reduce our profitability. In August 2011, the Federal Reserve announced its plans to keep interest rates at low levels until at least mid-2013.

Increases in market interest rates could also negatively affect our profitability. In periods of rapidly increasing interest rates, we may not be able to replace, in a timely manner, the investments in our general account with higher yielding investments needed to fund the higher crediting rates necessary to keep interest sensitive products competitive. We, therefore, may have to accept a lower spread and, thus, lower profitability or face a decline in sales and greater loss of existing contracts and related assets. In addition, policy loans, surrenders and withdrawals may tend to increase as policyholders seek investments with higher perceived returns as interest rates rise. This process may result in cash outflows requiring that we sell investments at a time when the prices of those investments are adversely affected by the increase in market interest rates, which may result in realized investment losses. Unanticipated withdrawals and terminations may cause us to accelerate the amortization of DAC and VOBA, which reduces net income. An increase in market interest rates could also have a material adverse effect on the value of our investment portfolio, for example, by decreasing the estimated fair values of the fixed income securities that comprise a substantial portion of our investment portfolio. Lastly, an increase in interest rates could result in decreased fee income associated with a decline in the value of variable annuity account balances invested in fixed income funds.

An Inability to Access MetLife’s Credit Facilities Could Result in a Reduction in Our Liquidity and Lead to Downgrades in Our Credit and Financial Strength Ratings

In August 2011, MetLife, Inc. entered into a $3 billion unsecured five-year credit agreement by amending and restating its October 2010 unsecured364-day credit agreement, and reduced the outstanding commitment under its

113

October 2010 unsecured three-year credit facility to $1 billion. It also has other facilities which it enters into in the ordinary course of business.

MetLife relies on its credit facilities as a potential source of liquidity. The availability of these facilities to MetLife could be critical to MetLife’s credit and financial strength ratings, as well as our financial strength ratings, and our ability to meet our obligations as they come due in a market when alternative sources of credit are tight. The credit facilities contain certain administrative, reporting, legal and financial covenants. MetLife must comply with covenants under its credit facilities, including a requirement to maintain a specified minimum consolidated net worth.

MetLife’s right to make borrowings under these facilities is subject to the fulfillment of certain important conditions, including its compliance with all covenants, and its ability to borrow under these facilities is also subject to the continued willingness and ability of the lenders that are parties to the facilities to provide funds. MetLife’s failure to comply with the covenants in the credit facilities or fulfill the conditions to borrowings, or the failure of lenders to fund their lending commitments (whether due to insolvency, illiquidity or other reasons) in the amounts provided for under the terms of the facilities, would restrict MetLife’s ability to access these credit facilities when needed and, consequently, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in Accounting Standards Issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board or OtherStandard-Setting Bodies May Adversely Affect Our Financial Statements

Our financial statements are subject to the application of accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, which is periodically revisedand/or expanded. Accordingly, from time to time we are required to adopt new or revised accounting standards issued by recognized authoritative bodies, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board. Market conditions have prompted accounting standard setters to expose new guidance which further interprets or seeks to revise accounting pronouncements related to financial instruments, structures or transactions, as well as to issue new standards expanding disclosures. The impact of accounting pronouncements that have been issued but not yet implemented, including new guidance regarding accounting for deferred acquisition costs, is disclosed in our reports filed with the SEC. See Note 1 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. An assessment of proposed standards is not provided as such proposals are subject to change through the exposure process and, therefore, the effects on our financial statements cannot be meaningfully assessed. It is possible that future accounting standards we are required to adopt could change the current accounting treatment that we apply to our consolidated financial statements and that such changes could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Litigation and Regulatory Investigations Are Increasingly Common in Our Businesses and May Result in Significant Financial Losses and/or Harm to Our Reputation

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In connection with our insurance operations, plaintiffs’ lawyers may bring or are bringing class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, claims payments and procedures, product design, disclosure, administration, denial or delay of benefits and breaches of fiduciary or other duties to customers. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of money damages or other relief. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experience of the Company in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value. See Note 5 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may normally be difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and

114

appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for a number of matters noted in Note 5 of the Notes to the Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. It is possible that some of the matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated at September 30, 2011.

We are subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas and books and record examinations, from state and federal regulators and other authorities. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including our ability to attract new customers, retain our current customers and recruit and retain employees. Regulatory inquiries and litigation may cause volatility in the price of stocks of companies in our industry.

More than 30 U.S. jurisdictions are auditing MetLife, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, including MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, for compliance with unclaimed property laws. Additionally, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and certain of its affiliates have received subpoenas and other regulatory inquiries from certain regulators and other officials relating to claims-payment practices and compliance with unclaimed property laws. An examination of these practices by the Illinois Department of Insurance has been converted into a multistate targeted market conduct exam. On July 5, 2011, the New York Insurance Department issued a letter requiring life insurers doing business in New York to use data available on the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File or a similar database to identify instances where death benefits under life insurance policies, annuities, and retained asset accounts are payable, to locate and pay beneficiaries under such contracts, and to report the results of the use of the data. It is possible that other jurisdictions may pursue similar investigations or inquiries, may join the multistate market conduct exam, or issue directives similar to the New York Insurance Department’s letter. It is possible that the audits, market conduct exam, and related activity may result in additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, administrative penalties, interest, and changes to the Company’s procedures for the identification and escheatment of abandoned property. The Company is not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible amount of any such additional payments or the reasonably possible cost of any such changes in procedures.

We cannot give assurance that current claims, litigation, unasserted claims probable of assertion, investigations and other proceedings against us will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. It is also possible that related or unrelated claims, litigation, unasserted claims probable of assertion, investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to further investigations and have lawsuits filed or enforcement actions initiated against us. In addition, increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings could result in new legal actions and precedents and industry-wide regulations that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Legislative and Regulatory Activity in Health Care and Other Employee Benefits Could Increase the Costs or Administrative Burdens of Providing Benefits to Employees Who Conduct Our Business or Hinder or Prevent MetLife and Its Affiliates From Attracting and Retaining Employees, or Affect our Profitability As a Provider of Life Insurance, Annuities, and Non-Medical Health Insurance Benefit Products

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, signed into law on March 30, 2010 (together, the “Health Care Act”), may lead to fundamental changes in the way that employers, including affiliates of MetLife, provide health care benefits, other benefits, and other forms of compensation to their employees and former employees. Among other changes, and subject to various effective dates, the Health Care Act generally restricts certain limits on benefits, mandates coverage for certain kinds of care, extends the required coverage of dependent children through age 26, eliminates

115

pre-existing condition exclusions or limitations, requires cost reporting and, in some cases, requires premium rebates to participants under certain circumstances, limits coverage waiting periods, establishes several penalties on employers who fail to offer sufficient coverage to their full-time employees, and requires employers under certain circumstances to provide employees with vouchers to purchase their own health care coverage. The Health Care Act also provides for increased taxation of “high cost” coverage, restricts the tax deductibility of certain compensation paid by health insurers, reduces the tax deductibility of retiree health care costs to the extent of any retiree prescription drug benefit subsidy provided to the employer by the federal government, increases Medicare taxes on certain high earners, and establishes health insurance “exchanges” for individual purchases of health insurance.

We depend on employees of MetLife affiliates to conduct our business. The impact of the Health Care Act on MetLife’s affiliates as employers and on the benefit plans they sponsor for their employees or retirees and their dependents, whether those benefits remain competitive or effective in meeting their business objectives, and our costs to provide such benefits and our tax liabilities in connection with benefits or compensation, cannot be predicted. Furthermore, we cannot predict the impact of choices that will be made by various regulators, including the U.S. Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and state regulators, to promulgate regulations or guidance, or to make determinations under or related to the Health Care Act. Either the Health Care Act or any of these regulatory actions could adversely affect the ability of MetLife and its affiliates to attract, retain, and motivate talented associates. They could also result in increased or unpredictable costs to provide employee benefits, and could harm our competitive position if MetLife or its affiliates are subject to fees, penalties, tax provisions or other limitations in the Health Care Act and our competitors are not.

The Health Care Act also imposes requirements on us as a provider of certain products, subject to various effective dates. It also imposes requirements on the purchasers of certain of these products. We cannot predict the impact of the Act or of regulations, guidance or determinations made by various regulators, on the various products that we offer. Either the Health Care Act or any of these regulatory actions could adversely affect our ability to offer certain of these products in the same manner as we do today. They could also result in increased or unpredictable costs to provide certain products, and could harm our competitive position if the Health Care Act has a disparate impact on our products compared to products offered by our competitors.

Litigation in U.S. federal courts has challenged whether the Health Care Act, or parts of it, are valid and consistent with the U.S. constitution. Some of the recent court decisions on these issues have held that the Health Care Act is unconstitutional, in whole or in part, and some observers believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide these issues in 2012. If the Health Care Act is ruled unconstitutional, the resulting disruption to the system of regulation of health care benefits, other benefits, and other forms of compensation in the U.S., and uncertainty regarding the future course of that system of regulation, may have impacts, some of them potentially negative, on the way that MetLife and its affiliates provide health care benefits, other benefits and other forms of compensation to employees, and on their ability to do so in an efficient manner, which could adversely affect their ability to attract, retain, and motivate talented associates and could also result in increased or unpredictable costs. Such a ruling, and the uncertainty it creates, could also result in negative effects on us as a provider of certain products, affecting our ability to offer certain products in the same manner as we do today or resulting in increased or unpredictable costs to provide certain products.

The Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010 also includes certain provisions for defined benefit pension plan funding relief. These provisions may impact the likelihoodand/or timing of corporate plan sponsors terminating their plansand/or engaging in transactions to partially or fully transfer pension obligations to an insurance company. We have issued general account and separate account group annuity products that enable a plan sponsor to transfer these risks, often in connection with the termination of defined benefit pension plans. Consequently, this legislation could indirectly affect the mix of our business, with fewer closeouts and more non-guaranteed funding products, and adversely impact our results of operations.

116

The Occurrence of Events Unanticipated in MetLife’s Disaster Recovery Systems and Management Continuity Planning, as well as a Failure in Cyber- or Other Information Security Systems, Could Result in a Loss or Disclosure of Confidential Information, Damage Our Reputation and Could Impair Our Ability to Conduct Business Effectively

In the event of a disaster such as a natural catastrophe, an epidemic, an industrial accident, a blackout, a computer virus, a terrorist attack, a cyberattack or war, unanticipated problems with our disaster recovery systems could have a material adverse impact on our ability to conduct business and on our results of operations and financial position, particularly if those problems affect our computer-based data processing, transmission, storage and retrieval systems and destroy valuable data. In addition, in the event that a significant number of our managers were unavailable in the event of a disaster, our ability to effectively conduct business could be severely compromised. These interruptions also may interfere with our suppliers’ ability to provide goods and services and our employees’ ability to perform their job responsibilities.

We depend heavily upon computer systems to provide reliable service. Despite our implementation of a variety of security measures, our computer systems could be subject to physical and electronic break-ins, cyberattacks and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering, including threats that may come from external factors, such as governments, organized crime, hackers and third parties to whom we outsource certain functions, or may originate internally from within the Company.

If one or more of these events occurs, it could potentially jeopardize the confidential, proprietary and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, as well as our customers’ or other third parties’, operations, which could result in damage to our reputation, financial losses, litigation, increased costs, regulatory penaltiesand/or customer dissatisfaction or loss. Although we take steps to prevent and detect such attacks, it is possible that we may not become aware of a cyber incident for some time after it occurs, which could increase our exposure to these consequences.

117

Item 6.   Exhibits

(Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts:In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q, please remember that they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, its subsidiaries or the other parties to the agreements. The agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and (i) should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate; (ii) have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement; (iii) may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to investors; and (iv) were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments. Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. Additional information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries may be found elsewhere in this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q and MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s other public filings, which are available without charge through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.)

Exhibit
No.			Description
	31	.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	31	.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	32	.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	32	.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	101	.INS	XBRL Instance Document.
	101	.SCH	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
	101	.CAL	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
	101	.LAB	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
	101	.PRE	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.
	101	.DEF	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.

118

Signatures

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

By:  /s/  Peter M. Carlson

Name:     Peter M. Carlson

Title:  Executive Vice President, Finance

Operations and Chief Accounting Officer

(Authorized Signatory and Principal Accounting Officer)

Date: November 10, 2011

119

Exhibit Index

(Note Regarding Reliance on Statements in Our Contracts:In reviewing the agreements included as exhibits to this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q, please remember that they are included to provide you with information regarding their terms and are not intended to provide any other factual or disclosure information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut, its subsidiaries or the other parties to the agreements. The agreements contain representations and warranties by each of the parties to the applicable agreement. These representations and warranties have been made solely for the benefit of the other parties to the applicable agreement and (i) should not in all instances be treated as categorical statements of fact, but rather as a way of allocating the risk to one of the parties if those statements prove to be inaccurate; (ii) have been qualified by disclosures that were made to the other party in connection with the negotiation of the applicable agreement, which disclosures are not necessarily reflected in the agreement; (iii) may apply standards of materiality in a way that is different from what may be viewed as material to investors; and (iv) were made only as of the date of the applicable agreement or such other date or dates as may be specified in the agreement and are subject to more recent developments. Accordingly, these representations and warranties may not describe the actual state of affairs as of the date they were made or at any other time. Additional information about MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut and its subsidiaries may be found elsewhere in this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q and MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s other public filings, which are available without charge through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.)

Exhibit
No.			Description
	31	.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	31	.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	32	.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	32	.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	101	.INS	XBRL Instance Document.
	101	.SCH	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document.
	101	.CAL	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document.
	101	.LAB	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document.
	101	.PRE	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document.
	101	.DEF	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document.

E-1