Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Commitments and Contingent Liabilities: Legal proceedings against the Company and its subsidiaries routinely arise in the normal course of business and usually pertain to claim matters related to insurance policies and contracts issued by its insurance subsidiaries. Other, non-routine legal proceedings which may prove to be material to the Company or a subsidiary are discussed below. A certified class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in Pennsylvania ( Markocki et al . v. ORNTIC , U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). ORNTIC challenged the certification of the consumer protection class and the RESPA class based on more recent case precedents. On May 28, 2015, the consumer protection class was decertified and ORNTIC's motion for summary judgment on the RESPA claim was granted and that claim was dismissed. The individual consumer protection claim alleged against ORNTIC remains. On December 19, 2008, Old Republic Insurance Company and Republic Insured Credit Services, Inc., ("Old Republic") filed suit against Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") and Bank of New York Mellon, BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware ("BNYM") in the Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois ( Old Republic Insurance Company, et al. v. Countrywide Bank FSB, et al. ) seeking rescission of various credit indemnity policies issued to insure home equity loans and home equity lines of credit which Countrywide had securitized or held for its own account, a declaratory judgment and money damages based upon systemic material misrepresentations and fraud by Countrywide as to the credit characteristics of the loans or by the borrowers in their loan applications. Countrywide filed a counterclaim alleging a breach of contract, bad faith and seeking a declaratory judgment challenging the factual and procedural bases that Old Republic had relied upon to deny or rescind coverage for individual defaulted loans under those policies, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The Court ruled that Countrywide does not have standing to counterclaim with respect to the policies insuring the securitized loans because those policies were issued to BNYM. In response, Countrywide and BNYM jointly filed a motion asking the Court to allow an amended counterclaim in which BNYM would raise substantially similar allegations as those raised by Countrywide and make substantially similar requests but with respect to the policies issued to BNYM. The Court dismissed their motion, with leave to re-plead the counterclaim. BNYM's subsequent attempt to re-plead was granted by the Court. No trial date has been set. On December 31, 2009 , two of the Company's mortgage insurance subsidiaries, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together "RMIC") filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, and Bank of America N.A. as successor in interest to Countrywide Bank, N.A. (together "Countrywide") ( Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, et al v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al) . The suit relates to five mortgage insurance master policies (the "Policies") issued by RMIC to Countrywide or to the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company as co-trustee for trusts containing securitized mortgage loans that were originated or purchased by Countrywide. RMIC has rescinded its mortgage insurance coverage on over 1,500 of the loans originally covered under the Policies based upon material misrepresentations of the borrowers in their loan applications or the negligence of Countrywide in its loan underwriting practices or procedures. Each of the coverage rescissions occurred after a borrower had defaulted and RMIC reviewed the claim and loan file submitted by Countrywide. The suit seeks the Court's review and interpretation of the Policies' incontestability provisions and its validation of RMIC's investigation procedures with respect to the claims and underlying loan files. On January 29, 2010, in response to RMIC's suit, Countrywide served RMIC with a demand for arbitration under the arbitration clauses of the same Policies. The demand raises largely the same issues as those raised in RMIC's suit against Countrywide, but from Countrywide's perspective, as well as Countrywide's and RMIC's compliance with the terms, provisions and conditions of the Policies. The demand includes a prayer for punitive, compensatory and consequential damages. RMIC filed a motion to stay the arbitration, and Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss RMIC's lawsuit and to compel the arbitration. On July 26, 2010, the Court granted Countrywide's motion, ordering the matters be submitted to arbitration and dismissing the lawsuit. The arbitration is proceeding. On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. ( White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al. ), ( Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. ). The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases. On May 16, 2013, Bank of America, N.A. ("B of A") filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against both Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together, "RMIC") under the arbitration provisions of the RMIC Master Policy of mortgage guaranty insurance issued to B of A. The demand relates to RMIC's denials of certain claims and rescissions of coverage as to other claims. B of A alleges RMIC's actions were in breach of contract, in breach of RMIC's duty of good faith and fair dealing and in bad faith. The allegations are substantially similar to those raised by B of A's affiliates, Countrywide Financial Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. in their arbitration demand against RMIC. B of A is a plaintiff in that proceeding as well, in its capacity as successor in interest to Countrywide Bank, N.A. B of A's demand requests a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of certain policy provisions, B of A's compliance with certain terms and conditions of the policy, and the propriety of certain coverage positions and claims administration procedures of RMIC. The demand also seeks unspecified money damages, punitive, compensatory and consequential damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The arbitration is proceeding. On August 26, 2014, Bank of America, N.A. ("B of A") filed suit against both Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company of North Carolina (together, "RMIC") in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The complaint arises in connection with a RMIC bulk mortgage guaranty insurance policy issued to B of A and several RMIC traditional primary mortgage guaranty insurance policies issued to correspondent lenders from whom B of A acquired loans or servicing rights on loans for which certificates of insurance were issued under such policies. The complaint relates to RMIC's denials and curtailments of certain claims and rescissions and cancellations of coverage as to other claims. B of A alleges RMIC's actions were in breach of contract, in breach of RMIC's duty of good faith and fair dealing and in bad faith. The allegations are substantially similar to those asserted by B of A in the May 16, 2013 American Arbitration Association arbitration demand against RMIC, and relate to loans that were dismissed from that proceeding. B of A's demand requests a declaratory judgment with respect to the interpretation of certain policy provisions, B of A's compliance with certain terms and conditions of the policy, and the propriety of certain coverage positions and claims administration procedures of RMIC. The demand also seeks money damages, punitive, compensatory and consequential damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 9, 2014, Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (collectively, "IV") served a complaint naming as defendants Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, Old Republic Title Insurance Group, Inc., Old Republic Insurance Company and Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. (collectively, "Old Republic")( Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Old Republic General Insurance Group, Inc. et al .). The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. IV alleges that Old Republic has infringed three patents and seeks damages, costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for the alleged infringement, in addition to injunctive relief. On October 14, 2014, Old Republic filed a motion to dismiss each count of the complaint on the grounds that the patents fail to meet the patentability test established by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank , 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). On January 20, 2015, Intellectual Ventures II LLC filed two complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas naming as defendants Great West Casualty Company and BITCO General Insurance Corporation and BITCO National Insurance Company. ( Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Great West Casualty Company ) and ( Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. BITCO General Insurance Corporation et al. ) The plaintiff alleges a single patent infringement and seeks damages, costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in addition to injunctive relief. On April 9, 2015, plaintiff amended each complaint to allege a second patent infringement claim. Under GAAP, an estimated loss is accrued only if the loss is probable and reasonably estimable. The Company and its subsidiaries have defended and intend to continue defending vigorously against each of the aforementioned actions. The Company does not believe it probable that any of these actions will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, though there can be no assurance in those regards. The Company has made an estimate of its potential liability under certain of these lawsuits, the counterclaim, and the arbitration, all of which seek unquantified damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. Because of the uncertainty of the ultimate outcomes of the aforementioned disputes, additional costs may arise in future periods beyond the Company's current reserves. It is also unclear what effect, if any, the run-off operations of RMIC and its limited capital will have in the actions against it. |