TRV, §1A diff (2015 → 2016)

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS You should carefully consider the following risks and all of the other information set forth in this report, including our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto. Catastrophe losses could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, our financial position and/or liquidity, and could adversely impact our ratings, our ability to raise capital and the availability and cost of reinsurance. Our property and casualty insurance operations expose us to claims arising out of catastrophes. Catastrophes can be caused by various natural events, including, among others, hurricanes, tornadoes and other windstorms, earthquakes, hail, wildfires, severe winter weather, floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and other naturally-occurring events, such as solar flares. Catastrophes can also be man-made, such as terrorist attacks and other intentionally destructive acts including those involving nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological, cyber-attacks, explosions and infrastructure failures. The geographic distribution of our business subjects us to catastrophe exposures in the United States and Canada, which include, but are not limited to: hurricanes from Maine through Texas; tornadoes throughout the Central, Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern regions of the United States; earthquakes in California, the New Madrid region and the Pacific Northwest region of North America; wildfires, particularly in western states and Canada; and terrorism in major cities in the United States. In addition to our operations in the United States and Canada, our international operations subject us to catastrophe exposures in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Brazil as well as to a variety of world-wide catastrophe exposures through our Lloyd's operations. The incidence and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable, and it is possible that both the frequency and severity of natural and man-made catastrophic events could increase. Severe weather events over the last decade have underscored the unpredictability of future climate trends, and potentially changing climate conditions could add to the frequency and severity of natural disasters and create additional uncertainty as to future trends and exposures. For example, over the last decade, hurricane activity has impacted areas further inland than previously experienced by us, and demographic changes have resulted in larger populations in coastal areas which historically have been subject to severe storms, thus expanding our potential for losses from hurricanes. Additionally, both the frequency and severity of tornado and hail storms in the United States have been more volatile during the last decade. Moreover, we could experience more than one severe catastrophic event in any given period. All of the catastrophe modeling tools that we use, or that we rely on from outside parties, to evaluate certain of our catastrophe exposures are based on assumptions and judgments that are subject to error and mis-estimation and may produce estimates that are materially different than actual results. In addition, compared to models for hurricanes, models for earthquakes are less reliable due to there being a more limited number of significant historical events to analyze, while models for tornadoes and hail storms are newer and may be even less reliable due to the highly random geographic nature and size of these events. As a result, models for earthquakes and tornado and hail storms may have even greater difficulty predicting risks and estimating losses. Further, changes in climate conditions could cause our underlying modeling data to be less predictive, thus limiting our ability to effectively evaluate and manage catastrophe risk. As compared to natural catastrophes, modeling for man-made catastrophes, such as terrorism, is even more difficult and less reliable, and for some events, such as cyber-attacks, currently there are no reliable modeling techniques. See "We may be adversely affected if our pricing and capital models provide materially different indications than actual results" below as well as "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Catastrophe Modeling" and "-Changing Climate Conditions." The extent of losses from a catastrophe is a function of both the total amount of insured exposure in the area affected by the event and the severity of the event. Increases in the value and geographic concentration of insured property and the effects of inflation could increase the severity of claims from catastrophic events in the future. For example, the specific geographic location impacted by tornadoes is inherently random and unpredictable and the specific location impacted by a tornado may or may not be highly populated and may or may not have a high concentration of our insured exposures. States have from time to time passed legislation, and regulators have taken action, that have the effect of limiting the ability of insurers to manage catastrophe risk, such as legislation prohibiting insurers from reducing exposures or withdrawing from catastrophe-prone areas or mandating that insurers participate in residual markets. Participation in residual market mechanisms has resulted in, and may continue to result in, significant losses or assessments to insurers, including us, and, in certain states, those losses or assessments may not be commensurate with our direct catastrophe exposure in those states. If our competitors leave those states having residual market mechanisms, remaining insurers, including us, may be subject to significant increases in losses or assessments following a catastrophe. In addition, following catastrophes, there are sometimes legislative and administrative initiatives and court decisions that seek to expand insurance coverage for catastrophe claims beyond the original intent of the policies or seek to prevent the application of deductibles. Also, our ability to adjust terms, including deductible levels, or to increase pricing to the extent necessary to offset rising costs of catastrophes, particularly in the Personal Insurance segment, requires approval of regulatory authorities of certain states. Our ability or our willingness to manage our catastrophe exposure by raising prices, modifying underwriting terms or reducing exposure to certain geographies may be limited due to considerations of public policy, the evolving political environment and/or changes in the general economic climate. We also may choose to write business in catastrophe-prone areas that we might not otherwise write for strategic purposes, such as improving our access to other underwriting opportunities. There are also factors that impact the estimation of ultimate costs for catastrophes. For example, the estimation of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves related to hurricanes can be affected by the inability to access portions of the impacted areas, the complexity of factors contributing to the losses, the legal and regulatory uncertainties and the nature of the information available to establish the claims and claim adjustment expense reserves. Complex factors include, but are not limited to: determining whether damage was caused by flooding versus wind; evaluating general liability and pollution exposures; estimating additional living expenses; the impact of demand surge; infrastructure disruption; fraud; the effect of mold damage; business interruption costs; and reinsurance collectability. In recent years, increased late reporting of weather-related losses by claimants, particularly losses from hail damage, has led to higher costs than we previously expected. The timing of a catastrophe's occurrence, such as at or near the end of a reporting period, can also affect the information available to us in estimating claims and claim adjustment expense reserves for that reporting period. The estimates related to catastrophes are adjusted in subsequent periods as actual claims emerge and additional information becomes available. Exposure to catastrophe losses or actual losses resulting from a catastrophe could adversely affect our financial strength and claims-paying ratings and could impair our ability to raise capital on acceptable terms or at all. Also, as a result of our exposure to catastrophe losses or actual losses following a catastrophe, rating agencies may further increase capital requirements, which may require us to raise capital to maintain our ratings. A ratings downgrade could hurt our ability to compete effectively or attract new business. In addition, catastrophic events could cause us to exhaust our available reinsurance limits and could adversely impact the cost and availability of reinsurance. Such events can also impact the credit of our reinsurers. For a discussion of our catastrophe reinsurance coverage, see "Item 1 - Business-Reinsurance-Catastrophe Reinsurance." Catastrophic events could also adversely impact the credit of the issuers of securities, such as states or municipalities, in which we have invested. In addition, coverage in our reinsurance program for terrorism is limited. Although the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program provides benefits in the event of certain acts of terrorism, those benefits are subject to a deductible and other limitations. The program expired at the end of 2014 but was reauthorized, with some adjustments to its provisions, in January 2015 for six years through December 31, 2020. Under current provisions of this program, once our losses exceed 20% of our commercial property and casualty insurance premium for the preceding calendar year, the federal government will reimburse us for 84% of our losses attributable to certain acts of terrorism which exceed this deductible up to a total industry program cap of $100 billion. Our estimated deductible under the program is $2.43 billion for 2016. Over the remaining five-year life of the reauthorized program, the federal government reimbursement percentage will fall from 84% to 80%. In addition, because the interpretation of this law is untested, there is substantial uncertainty as to how it will be applied to specific circumstances. For example, application of the law to a specific event will depend upon whether the government has designated such event as a covered event. It is also possible that future legislation could change or eliminate the program, which could adversely affect our business by increasing our exposure to terrorism losses, or by lowering our business volume through efforts to avoid that exposure. For a further description of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, see note 5 of notes to the consolidated financial statements herein. Because of the risks set forth above, catastrophes such as those caused by various natural events or man-made events such as a terrorist attack or other intentionally destructive acts, including those involving nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological or cyber events, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position and/or liquidity. Further, we may not have sufficient resources to respond to claims arising from a high frequency of high severity natural catastrophes and/or of man-made catastrophic events involving conventional means. In addition, while we seek to manage our exposure to man-made catastrophic events involving conventional means, we may not have sufficient resources to respond to claims arising out of one or more man-made catastrophic events involving "unconventional" means, such as nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological events. During or following a period of financial market disruption or economic downturn, our business could be materially and adversely affected. Worldwide financial markets have, from time to time, experienced significant disruption. For example, during the financial crisis that started approximately eight years ago, the United States and many other economies experienced a prolonged economic downturn, resulting in heightened credit risk, reduced valuation of certain investments and decreased economic activity. Financial markets may again experience significant and prolonged disruption, including as a result of unanticipated events. In the years following the financial crisis, the federal government, particularly the Federal Reserve, has taken extraordinary steps to stabilize financial markets, encourage economic growth and keep interest rates low. During this time, the United States has experienced a slow rate of economic growth. Even if economic growth continues in the United States, or other regions in which we do business, it may be at a slow or slower rate for an extended period of time. While inflation has recently been limited and that trend may continue, it is possible that the steps taken by the federal government to stabilize financial markets and improve economic conditions could lead to an inflationary environment. Further, such steps may be ineffective and, in the case of the Federal Reserve, actual or anticipated efforts to continue to unwind some of such steps could disrupt financial markets and/or could adversely impact the value of our investment portfolio or general economic conditions. Financial market disruption or economic downturns could be exacerbated by actual or potential economic and geopolitical instability in many regions of the world. This can impact our business even if we do not conduct business in the region subject to the instability. For example, due to globalization, instability in one region can spread to other regions where we do business. In Europe, uncertainty in recent years has included the increased potential for default by one or more European sovereign debt issuers, the potential partial or complete dissolution of the Eurozone and its common currency and the negative impact of such potential events on global financial institutions and capital markets generally. Actions or inactions of European governments may impact these actual or perceived risks. In the United States, future actions or inactions of the United States government can also impact economic conditions. For example, issues related to the U.S. Federal budget and taxes, implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the regulatory environment have added to the uncertainty regarding economic conditions generally. If economic conditions deteriorate, or if financial markets experience significant disruption, it could materially adversely affect our results of operations, financial position and/or liquidity. Several of the risk factors discussed below identify risks that result from, or are exacerbated by, an economic slowdown or financial disruption. These include risks discussed below related to our investment portfolio, reinsurance arrangements, other credit exposures, our estimates of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves, emerging claim and coverage issues, the competitive environment, regulatory developments and the impact of rating agency actions. You should also refer to "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," particularly the "Outlook" section. Many of these risks could materialize, and our financial results could be negatively impacted, even after the end of an economic downturn or financial disruption. During or following an economic downturn, lower levels of economic activity could reduce (and historically have reduced) exposure changes at renewal. They also could adversely impact (and historically have adversely impacted) audit premium adjustments, policy endorsements and mid-term cancellations after policies are written, particularly in our business units within Business and International Insurance, which could adversely impact our written premiums. An inflationary environment (which may follow government efforts to stabilize the economy) may also, as we discuss below, adversely impact our loss costs and could adversely impact the valuation of our investment portfolio. Finally, as a result of financial market disruption, we may, as discussed below, face increased regulation. If actual claims exceed our claims and claim adjustment expense reserves, or if changes in the estimated level of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves are necessary, our financial results could be materially and adversely affected. Claims and claim adjustment expense reserves do not represent an exact calculation of liability, but instead represent management estimates of what the ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost, generally utilizing actuarial expertise and projection techniques, at a given accounting date. The process of estimating claims and claim adjustment expense reserves involves a high degree of judgment and is subject to a number of variables. These variables can be affected by both internal and external events, such as: changes in claims handling procedures; adverse changes in loss cost trends, including inflationary pressures on medical costs and auto and home repair costs; economic conditions including general inflation; legal trends and legislative changes; and varying judgments and viewpoints of the individuals involved in the estimation process, among others. The impact of many of these items on ultimate costs for claims and claim adjustment expenses is difficult to estimate. Claims and claim adjustment expense reserve estimation difficulties also differ significantly by product line due to differences in claim complexity, the volume of claims, the potential severity of individual claims, the determination of occurrence date for a claim and reporting lags (the time between the occurrence of the policyholder event and when it is actually reported to the insurer). As discussed above, it is possible that steps taken by the federal government to stabilize the economy could lead to higher inflation than we had anticipated, which could in turn lead to an increase in our loss costs. The impact of inflation on loss costs could be more pronounced for those lines of business that are considered "long tail," such as general liability, as they require a relatively long period of time to finalize and settle claims for a given accident year. In addition, a significant portion of claims costs, including those in "long tail" lines of business, consists of medical costs. Healthcare reform legislation and its implementation may significantly impact the availability, cost and allocation of payments for medical services, and it is possible that, as a result, inflationary pressures in medical costs may increase or claim frequency and/or severity may otherwise be adversely impacted. The estimation of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves may also be more difficult during times of adverse or uncertain economic conditions due to unexpected changes in behavior of claimants and policyholders, including an increase in fraudulent reporting of exposures and/or losses, reduced maintenance of insured properties, increased frequency of small claims or delays in the reporting of claims. We continually refine our claims and claim adjustment expense reserve estimates in a regular, ongoing process as historical loss experience develops, additional claims are reported and settled, and the legal, regulatory and economic environment evolves. Business judgment is applied throughout the process, including the application of various individual experiences and expertise to multiple sets of data and analyses. Different experts may choose different assumptions when faced with material uncertainty, based on their individual backgrounds, professional experiences and areas of focus. Hence, such experts may at times produce estimates materially different from each other. This risk may be exacerbated in the context of an acquisition. Experts providing input to the various estimates and underlying assumptions include actuaries, underwriters, claim personnel and lawyers, as well as other members of management. Therefore, management may have to consider varying individual viewpoints as part of its estimation of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves. We attempt to consider all significant facts and circumstances known at the time claims and claim adjustment expense reserves are established or reviewed. Due to the inherent uncertainty underlying claims and claim adjustment expense reserve estimates, the final resolution of the estimated liability for claims and claim adjustment expenses will likely be higher or lower than the related claims and claim adjustment expense reserves at the reporting date. Therefore, actual paid losses in the future may yield a materially different amount than is currently reserved. Because of the uncertainties set forth above, additional liabilities resulting from one insured event, or an accumulation of insured events, may exceed the current related reserves. In addition, our estimate of claims and claim adjustment expenses may change. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and/or our financial position. For a discussion of claims and claim adjustment expense reserves by product line, including examples of common factors that can affect required reserves, see "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Critical Accounting Estimates-Claims and Claim Adjustment Expense Reserves." Our investment portfolio may suffer reduced returns or material realized or unrealized losses. Investment returns are an important part of our overall profitability. Fixed maturity and short-term investments comprised approximately 93% of the carrying value of our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2015. Changes in interest rates caused by inflation or other factors (inclusive of credit spreads) affect the carrying value of our fixed maturity investments and returns on our fixed maturity and short-term investments. A decline in interest rates reduces the returns available on short-term investments and new fixed maturity investments (including those purchased to re-invest maturities from the existing portfolio), thereby negatively impacting our net investment income, while rising interest rates reduce the market value of existing fixed maturity investments, thereby negatively impacting our book value. During 2015, the net pretax unrealized gain in our fixed income portfolio decreased from $2.67 billion to $1.78 billion as interest rates increased. It is possible that future increases in interest rates (inclusive of credit spreads) could result in a further decline in that unrealized gain position or in an unrealized loss, thereby adversely impacting our book value. Interest rates in recent years have been and remain at very low levels relative to historical experience, and it is possible that rates may remain at low levels for a prolonged period. The value of our fixed maturity and short-term investments is also subject to the risk that certain investments may default or become impaired due to a deterioration in the financial condition of one or more issuers of the securities held in our portfolio, or due to a deterioration in the financial condition of an insurer that guarantees an issuer's payments of such investments. Such defaults and impairments could reduce our net investment income and result in realized investment losses. During an economic downturn, fixed maturity and short-term investments could be subject to a higher risk of default. Rapid changes in commodity prices, such as a significant decline in oil prices, could also subject certain of our investments to a higher risk of default. Our fixed maturity investment portfolio is invested, in substantial part, in obligations of states, municipalities and political subdivisions (collectively referred to as the municipal bond portfolio). Notwithstanding the relatively low historical rates of default on many of these obligations and notwithstanding that we typically seek to invest in high-credit-quality securities (including those with structural protections such as being secured by dedicated or pledged sources of revenue), our municipal bond portfolio could be subject to default or impairment. In particular: • The prolonged economic downturn that began in 2008, and the limited economic recovery that has followed, has resulted in many states and local governments operating under deficits or projected deficits. The severity and duration of these deficits could have an adverse impact on the collectability and valuation of our municipal bond portfolio. These deficits may be exacerbated by the impact of unfunded pension plan obligations and other postretirement obligations or by declining municipal tax bases and revenues in times of financial stress. • Some issuers may be unwilling to increase tax rates, or to reduce spending, to fund interest or principal payments on their municipal bonds, or may be unable to access the municipal bond market to fund such payments. The risk of widespread defaults may increase if some issuers voluntarily choose to default, instead of implementing difficult fiscal measures, and the actual or perceived consequences (such as reduced access to capital markets) are less severe than expected. • The risk of widespread defaults may also increase if there are changes in legislation that permit states, municipalities and political subdivisions to file for bankruptcy protection where they were not permitted before. In addition, the collectability and valuation of municipal bonds may be adversely affected if there are judicial interpretations in a bankruptcy or other proceeding that lessen the value of structural protections. For example, debtors may challenge the effectiveness of structural protections thought to be provided by municipal securities backed by a dedicated source of revenue. The collectability and valuation may also be adversely affected if there are judicial interpretations in a bankruptcy or other proceeding that question the payment priority of municipal bonds. A substantial portion of our fixed maturity portfolio will mature within the next few years. Approximately 34% of the fixed maturity portfolio is expected to mature over the next three years (this includes the early redemption of bonds, assuming interest rates (including credit spreads) do not rise significantly by applicable call dates). For a schedule of the contractual maturities of our fixed maturity portfolio by year for the next several years, see "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Investment Portfolio." Of that maturing portfolio, a substantial amount includes municipal bonds that have been pre-refunded with U.S. treasury securities. As a result, even if our investment strategy does not significantly change over the next few years, the overall yield on and composition of our portfolio could be meaningfully impacted by the types of investments available for reinvestment with the proceeds of matured bonds. For example, if yields remain low when we reinvest such proceeds, our future net investment income would be adversely affected. In addition, depending on the specific bonds available for purchase at the time of re-investment, the mix of specific issuers in our fixed-income and municipal bond portfolio will change. Our portfolio has benefited from tax exemptions and certain other tax laws, including, but not limited to, those governing dividends-received deductions and tax credits (such as foreign tax credits). Changes in these laws could adversely impact the value of our investment portfolio. See "Changes in U.S. tax laws or in the tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate could adversely impact us" below. Our investment portfolio includes: residential mortgage-backed securities; collateralized mortgage obligations; pass-through securities and asset-backed securities collateralized by sub-prime mortgages; commercial mortgage-backed securities; and wholly-owned real estate and real estate partnerships, all of which could be adversely impacted by declines in real estate valuations and/or financial market disruption. We also invest a portion of our assets in equity securities, private equity limited partnerships, hedge funds and real estate partnerships. From time to time, we may also invest in other types of non-fixed maturity investments, including investments with exposure to commodity price risk, such as oil. All of these asset classes are subject to greater volatility in their investment returns than fixed maturity investments. General economic conditions, changes in applicable tax laws and many other factors beyond our control can adversely affect the value of our non-fixed maturity investments and the realization of net investment income, and/or result in realized investment losses. As a result of these factors, we may realize reduced returns on these investments, incur losses on sales of these investments and be required to write down the value of these investments, which could reduce our net investment income and result in realized investment losses. From time to time, the Company enters into short positions in U.S. Treasury futures contracts to manage the duration of its fixed maturity portfolio, which can result in realized investment losses. Our investment portfolio is also subject to increased valuation uncertainties when investment markets are illiquid. The valuation of investments is more subjective when markets are illiquid, thereby increasing the risk that the estimated fair value (i.e., the carrying amount) of the portion of the investment portfolio that is carried at fair value as reflected in our financial statements is not reflective of prices at which actual transactions could occur. Given that economic and market conditions have been and could be highly uncertain, we may, depending on circumstances in the future, make changes to the mix of investments in our investment portfolio. These changes may impact the duration, volatility and risk of our investment portfolio. Because of the risks set forth above, the value of our investment portfolio could decrease, we could experience reduced net investment income and we could experience realized and/or unrealized investment losses, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations, financial position and/or liquidity. Our business could be harmed because of our potential exposure to asbestos and environmental claims and related litigation. With regard to asbestos claims, we have received and continue to receive a significant number of asbestos claims from policyholders (including others seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. This trend of prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, has contributed to the claims and claim adjustment expense payments we experienced. We also continue to be involved in coverage litigation concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's favor and our other defenses are not successful, our coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders. Although we have seen a moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. Further, in addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including us, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including us, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. With regard to environmental claims, we have received and continue to receive claims from policyholders who allege that they are liable for injury or damage arising out of their alleged disposition of toxic substances. Mostly, these claims arise under various legislative as well as regulatory efforts aimed at environmental remediation. For instance, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), enacted in 1980 and later modified, enables private parties as well as federal and state governments to take action with respect to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances. This federal statute permits the recovery of response costs from some liable parties and may require liable parties to undertake their own remedial action. Liability under CERCLA and similar state laws may be imposed on certain parties even if they did not cause the release or threatened release of hazardous substances and may be joint and several with other responsible parties. The Company has been, and continues to be, involved in litigation involving insurance coverage issues pertaining to asbestos and environmental claims. The Company believes that some court decisions have interpreted the insurance coverage to be broader than the original intent of the insurers and policyholders. These decisions continue to be inconsistent and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Uncertainties surrounding the final resolution of these asbestos and environmental claims continue, and it is difficult to estimate our ultimate liability for such claims and related litigation. As a result, these reserves are subject to revision as new information becomes available and as claims develop. The continuing uncertainties include, without limitation: • the risks and lack of predictability inherent in complex litigation; • a further increase in the cost to resolve, and/or the number of, asbestos and environmental claims beyond that which is anticipated; • the emergence of a greater number of asbestos claims than anticipated as a result of extended life expectancies resulting from medical advances and lifestyle improvements; • the role of any umbrella or excess policies we have issued; • the resolution or adjudication of disputes concerning coverage for asbestos and environmental claims in a manner inconsistent with our previous assessment of these disputes; • the number and outcome of direct actions against us; • future developments pertaining to our ability to recover reinsurance for asbestos and environmental claims; • any impact on asbestos defendants we insure due to the bankruptcy of other asbestos defendants; • the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers; and • uncertainties arising from the insolvency or bankruptcy of policyholders. It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal, regulatory and legislative environment and their impact on the future development of asbestos and environmental claims. This environment could be affected by changes in applicable legislation and future court and regulatory decisions and interpretations, including the outcome of legal challenges to legislative and/or judicial reforms establishing medical criteria for the pursuit of asbestos claims. It is also difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of complex coverage disputes until settlement negotiations near completion and significant legal questions are resolved or, failing settlement, until the dispute is adjudicated. This is particularly the case with policyholders in bankruptcy where negotiations often involve a large number of claimants and other parties and require court approval to be effective. While the ongoing evaluation of asbestos and environmental claims and associated liabilities considers the inconsistencies of court decisions as to coverage, plaintiffs' expanded theories of liability and the risks inherent in complex litigation and other uncertainties, it is possible that the outcome of the continued uncertainties regarding these claims could result in liability in future periods that differs from current reserves by an amount that could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. See the "Asbestos Claims and Litigation" and "Environmental Claims and Litigation" sections of "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations." Also see "Item 3 - Legal Proceedings." We are exposed to, and may face adverse developments involving, mass tort claims such as those relating to exposure to potentially harmful products or substances. In addition to asbestos and environmental claims, we face exposure to other types of mass tort claims, including claims related to exposure to potentially harmful products or substances, including lead paint, silica and welding rod fumes. Establishing claims and claim adjustment expense reserves for mass tort claims is subject to uncertainties because of many factors, including expanded theories of liability, disputes concerning medical causation with respect to certain diseases, geographical concentration of the lawsuits asserting the claims and the potential for a large rise in the total number of claims without underlying epidemiological developments suggesting an increase in disease rates. Moreover, evolving judicial interpretations regarding the application of various tort theories and defenses, including application of various theories of joint and several liabilities, as well as the application of insurance coverage to these claims, make it difficult to estimate our ultimate liability for such claims. Because of the uncertainties set forth above, additional liabilities may arise for amounts in excess of the current related reserves. In addition, our estimate of claims and claim adjustment expenses may change, and such change could be material. These additional liabilities or increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be reasonably estimated and could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business are uncertain. As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues related to claim and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely affect our business, including by extending coverage beyond our underwriting intent, by increasing the number, size or types of claims or by mandating changes to our underwriting practices. Examples of emerging claims and coverage issues include, but are not limited to: • judicial expansion of policy coverage and the impact of new or expanded theories of liability; • plaintiffs targeting property and casualty insurers, including us, in purported class action litigation relating to claims-handling and other practices; • claims relating to construction defects, which often present complex coverage and damage valuation questions; • claims under directors' & officers' insurance policies relating to losses from involvement in financial market activities, such as mortgage or financial product origination, distribution, structuring or servicing and foreclosure procedures; failed financial institutions; fraud; possible accounting irregularities; and corporate governance issues; • claims related to data and network security breaches, information system failures or cyber-attacks, including cases where coverage was not intended to be provided; • the assertion of "public nuisance" or similar theories of liability, pursuant to which plaintiffs seek to recover monies spent to administer public health care programs, abate hazards to public health and safety and/or recover damages purportedly attributable to a "public nuisance"; • claims related to liability or workers' compensation arising out of the spread of infectious disease or pandemic; • claims relating to molestation by an employee or a volunteer of an insured; • claims that link health issues to particular causes (for example, cumulative traumatic head injury from sports or other causes), resulting in liability or workers' compensation claims; • claims alleging that one or more of our underwriting criteria have a disparate impact on persons belonging to a protected class in violation of the law, including the Fair Housing Act; • claims arising out of techniques to expand access to oil and gas resources, such as hydraulic fracturing; • claims arising out of the use of personal cars, homes or other property in commercial transactions, such as ride or home sharing; • claims relating to unanticipated consequences of current or new technologies or business models or processes; and • claims relating to potentially changing climate conditions, including higher frequency and severity of weather-related events. In some instances, these emerging issues may not become apparent for some time after we have issued the affected insurance policies. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance policies may not be known for many years after the policies are issued. In addition, the potential passage of new legislation designed to expand the right to sue, to remove limitations on recovery, to deem by statute the existence of a covered occurrence, to extend the statutes of limitations or otherwise to repeal or weaken tort reforms could have an adverse impact on our business. The effects of these and other unforeseen emerging claim and coverage issues are extremely hard to predict and could harm our business and materially and adversely affect our results of operations. The intense competition that we face could harm our ability to maintain or increase our business volumes and our profitability. The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive, and we believe that it will remain highly competitive for the foreseeable future. We compete with both domestic and foreign insurers which may offer products at prices and on terms that are not consistent with our economic standards in an effort to maintain or increase their business. The competitive environment in which we operate could also be impacted by current general economic conditions, which could reduce the volume of business available to us as well as to our competitors. In recent years, pension and hedge funds and other entities with substantial available capital and potentially lower return objectives have increasingly sought to participate in the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance businesses. Well-capitalized new entrants to the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance industries, existing competitors that receive substantial infusions of capital, as well as competitors that can take advantage of more favorable tax domiciles than the United States, may conduct business in ways that adversely impact our business volumes and profitability. Further, an expanded supply of reinsurance capital may lower costs for insurers that rely significantly on reinsurance and, as a consequence, those insurers may be able to price their products more competitively. In addition, the competitive environment could be impacted by changes in customer preferences, including customer demand for direct distribution channels, not only in personal lines (where we currently and may increasingly compete against direct writers), but also in commercial lines (where direct writers may become a more significant source of competition in the future, particularly in the small commercial market). Consolidation within the insurance industry also could alter the competitive environment in which we operate, which may impact our business volumes and/or the rates or terms of our products. In Personal Insurance, the use of comparative rating technologies has impacted, and may continue to impact, our business as well as the industry as a whole. A substantial amount of the Company's Personal Insurance new business is written after an agent compares quotes using comparative rating technologies, a cost-efficient means of obtaining quotes from multiple companies. Because the use of this technology, whether by agents or directly by customers, facilitates the process of generating multiple quotes, the technology has increased price comparison on new business and, increasingly, on renewal business. It also has resulted in an increase in the level of quote activity and a lower percentage of quotes that result in new business from customers, and these trends may continue or accelerate. If we are not able to operate with a competitive cost structure or accurately estimate and price for claims and claim adjustment expenses, our underwriting margins could be adversely affected over time. Additionally, similar technology is starting to be used to access comparative rates for small commercial business and that trend may continue or accelerate. Significant technology companies or other third parties have created, and may in the future create, digitally-enabled alternate distribution channels for personal or commercial business that may adversely impact our competitive position. These alternative distribution channels may compete with us directly by providing, or arranging to provide, insurance coverage themselves. See also "Disruptions to our relationships with our independent agents and brokers could adversely affect us" below. Other technological changes may present competitive risks. For example, innovations, such as telematics and other usage-based methods of determining premiums, can impact product design and pricing and may become an increasingly important competitive factor. Other potential technological changes, such as driverless cars, assisted-driving technologies or technologies that facilitate ride or home sharing, could disrupt the demand for our products from current customers, create coverage issues or impact the frequency or severity of losses, and we may not be able to respond effectively. In addition, our competitive position could be impacted if we are unable to deploy, in a cost effective manner, technology that collects and analyzes a wide variety of data points (so-called "big data" analysis) to make underwriting or other decisions. See also "Our business success and profitability depend, in part, on effective information technology systems and on continuing to develop and implement improvements in technology" below. Competitive dynamics may impact the success of efforts to improve our underwriting margins on our insurance products. These efforts could include seeking improved rates, as well as improved terms and conditions, and could also include other initiatives, such as reducing operating expenses and acquisition costs. These efforts may not be successful and/or may result in lower retention and new business levels and therefore lower business volumes. In addition, if our underwriting is not effective, further efforts to increase rates could also lead to "adverse selection", whereby accounts retained have higher losses, and are less profitable, than accounts lost. For more detail, see "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Outlook." In particular, in recent years, we have undertaken various actions to improve our underwriting margins in our Agency Automobile line of business. See "Item 1 - Business-Personal Insurance-Competition" above for a description of some of these actions, including the offer of a new, more competitively-priced product. These factors include (i) changes in customer preferences and demand for direct distribution channels, (ii) utilization of comparative rating technologies by agents and/or technology companies and (iii) other technological changes, as described above. If our strategies to increase profitability in the Agency Automobile line of business do not continue to be effective, we may need to explore other actions or initiatives to improve our competitive position and profitability in this line of business. Overall, our competitive position in our various businesses is based on many factors, including but not limited to our: • ability to profitably price our business, retain existing customers and obtain new business; • premiums charged, contract terms and conditions, products and services offered (including the ability to design customized programs); • agent, broker and client relationships; • ability to keep pace relative to our competitors with changes in technology and information systems; • speed of claims payment; • ability to provide our products and services in a cost effective manner; • ability to adapt to changes in business models, customer preferences or regulation impacting the markets in which we operate; • perceived overall financial strength and corresponding ratings assigned by independent rating agencies; • reputation, experience and qualifications of employees; • geographic scope of business; and • local presence. We may have difficulty in continuing to compete successfully on any of these bases in the future. If competition limits our ability to retain existing business or write new business at adequate rates or on appropriate terms, our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. See "Competition" sections of the discussion on business segments in "Item 1 - Business." Disruptions to our relationships with our independent agents and brokers could adversely affect us. We market our insurance products primarily through independent agents and brokers. An important part of our business is written through less than a dozen such intermediaries. Further, there has been a trend of increased consolidation by agents and brokers, which could impact our relationships with, and fees paid to, some agents and brokers, and/or otherwise negatively impact the pricing or distribution of our products. Agents and brokers may increasingly compete with us to the extent that markets increasingly provide them with direct access to providers of capital seeking exposure to insurance risk. See also "The intense competition that we face could harm our ability to maintain or increase our business volumes and our profitability." In all of the foregoing situations, loss of all or a substantial portion of the business provided through such agents and brokers could materially and adversely affect our future business volume and results of operations. We may also seek to develop new products or distribution channels, which could disrupt our relationships with our agents and brokers. In addition, agents and brokers may create alternate distribution channels for commercial business that may adversely impact product differentiation and pricing. Access to greater levels of data and increased utilization of technology by agents and brokers may also impact our relationship with them and our competitive position. Our efforts or their efforts with respect to new products or alternate distribution channels, as well as changes in the way agents and brokers utilize data and technology, could adversely impact our business relationship with independent agents and brokers who currently market our products, resulting in a lower volume and/or profitability of business generated from these sources. We rely on internet applications for the marketing and sale of certain of our products, and we may increasingly rely on internet applications and toll-free numbers for distribution. In some instances, our agents and brokers are required to access separate business platforms to execute the sale of our personal insurance or commercial insurance products. Should internet disruptions occur, or frustration with our business platforms or distribution initiatives develop among our independent agents and brokers, any resulting loss of business could materially and adversely affect our future business volume and results of operations. See "If we experience difficulties with technology, data security and/or outsourcing relationships, our ability to conduct our business could be negatively impacted" below. Customers in the past have brought claims against us for the actions of our agents. Even with proper controls in place, actual or alleged errors or inaccuracies by our agents could result in our involvement in disputes, litigation or regulatory actions related to actions taken or not taken by our agents. We may not be able to collect all amounts due to us from reinsurers and reinsurance coverage may not be available to us in the future at commercially reasonable rates or at all. Although the reinsurer is liable to us to the extent of the ceded reinsurance, we remain liable as the direct insurer on all risks reinsured. As a result, ceded reinsurance arrangements do not eliminate our obligation to pay claims. Accordingly, we are subject to credit risk with respect to our ability to recover amounts due from reinsurers. In the past, certain reinsurers have ceased writing business and entered into runoff. Some of our reinsurance claims may be disputed by the reinsurers, and we may ultimately receive partial or no payment. This is a particular risk in the case of claims that relate to insurance policies written many years ago, including those relating to asbestos and environmental claims. In addition, in a number of jurisdictions, particularly the European Union and the United Kingdom, a reinsurer is permitted to transfer a reinsurance arrangement to another reinsurer, which may be less creditworthy, without a counterparty's consent, provided that the transfer has been approved by the applicable regulatory and/or court authority. Included in reinsurance recoverables are amounts related to certain structured settlements. Structured settlements are annuities purchased from various life insurance companies to settle certain personal physical injury claims, of which workers' compensation claims comprise a significant portion. In cases where we did not receive a release from the claimant, the structured settlement is included in reinsurance recoverables and the related claim cost is included in the liability for claims and claim adjustment expense reserves, as we retain the contingent liability to the claimant. If it is expected that the life insurance company is not able to pay, we would recognize an impairment of the related reinsurance recoverable if, and to the extent, the purchased annuities are not covered by state guaranty associations. In the event that the life insurance company fails to make the required annuity payments, we would be required to make such payments. Many life insurance companies were negatively impacted by the financial markets disruption and the economic downturn beginning in 2008. A number of these companies, including certain of those with which we conduct business or to which we otherwise have credit exposure, were downgraded by various rating agencies during this time period. For a discussion of our top reinsurance groups by reinsurance recoverable and the top five groups by amount of structured settlements provided, see "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Reinsurance Recoverables." The availability and cost of reinsurance are subject to prevailing market conditions, both in terms of price and available capacity. The availability of reinsurance capacity can be impacted by general economic conditions and conditions in the reinsurance market, such as the occurrence of significant reinsured events. The availability and cost of reinsurance could affect our business volume and profitability. In addition, certain countries, particularly in Europe, recently have been pressuring the U.S. to reduce its regulatory requirements for U.S. ceding companies to obtain collateral from reinsurers located outside the United States which, if successful, could make it more difficult for U.S. companies, including us, to obtain sufficient collateral, if any, in such reinsurance arrangements. Because of the risks set forth above, we may not be able to collect all amounts due to us from reinsurers, and reinsurance coverage may not be available to us in the future at commercially reasonable rates or at all, and/or life insurance companies may fail to make required annuity payments, and thus our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. We are exposed to credit risk in certain of our business and investment operations including reinsurance or structured settlements. In addition to exposure to credit risk related to our investment portfolio and reinsurance recoverables (discussed above), we are exposed to credit risk in several other areas of our business operations, including credit risk relating to policyholders, independent agents and brokers. We are exposed to credit risk in our surety insurance operations, where we guarantee to a third party that our customer will satisfy certain performance obligations (e.g., a construction contract) or certain financial obligations, including exposure to large customers who may have obligations to multiple third parties. If our customer defaults, we may suffer losses and not be reimbursed by that customer. In addition, it is customary practice in the surety business for multiple insurers to participate as co-sureties on large surety bonds. Under these arrangements, the co-surety obligations are typically joint and several, in which case we are also exposed to credit risk with respect to our co-sureties. In addition, a portion of our business is written with large deductible insurance policies. Under casualty insurance contracts with deductible features, we are obligated to pay the claimant the full amount of the claim. We are subsequently reimbursed by the contractholder for the deductible amount, and, as a result, we are exposed to credit risk to the policyholder. Moreover, certain policyholders purchase retrospectively rated workers' compensation policies (i.e., policies in which premiums are adjusted after the policy period based on the actual loss experience of the policyholder during the policy period). Retrospectively rated policies expose us to additional credit risk to the extent that the adjusted premium is greater than the original premium. Our efforts to mitigate the credit risk that we have to our insureds may not be successful. To reduce such credit risk, we require certain insureds to post collateral for some or all of these obligations, often in the form of pledged securities such as money market funds or letters of credit provided by banks, surety bonds or cash. In cases where we receive pledged securities and the insureds are unable to honor their obligations, we may be exposed to credit risk on the securities pledged and/or the risk that our access to that collateral may be stayed during an insured's bankruptcy. In cases where we receive letters of credit from banks and the insureds are unable to honor their obligations, we are exposed to the credit risk of the banks that issued the letters of credit. In accordance with industry practice, when policyholders purchase insurance policies from us through independent agents and brokers, the premiums relating to those policies are often paid to the agents and brokers for payment to us. In most jurisdictions, the premiums will be deemed to have been paid to us whether or not they are actually received by us. Consequently, we assume a degree of credit risk associated with amounts due from independent agents and brokers. To a large degree, the credit risk we face is a function of the economy; accordingly, we face a greater risk in an economic downturn. While we attempt to manage the risks discussed above through underwriting and investment guidelines, collateral requirements and other oversight mechanisms, our efforts may not be successful. For example, collateral obtained may subsequently have little or no value. Further, the amount of collateral protection we have been able to obtain on the business we write in certain markets has decreased, and may continue to decrease, as a result of competition. As a result, our exposure to the above credit risks could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. Within the United States, our businesses are heavily regulated by the states in which we conduct business, including licensing and supervision, and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth. These regulatory systems are generally designed to protect the interests of policyholders, and not necessarily the interests of insurers, their shareholders and other investors. For example, to protect policyholders whose insurance company becomes financially insolvent, guaranty funds have been established in all 50 states to pay the covered claims of policyholders in the event of an insolvency of an insurer, subject to applicable state limits. The funding of guaranty funds is provided through assessments levied against remaining insurers in the marketplace. As a result, the insolvency of one or more insurance companies could result in additional assessments levied against us. In addition, several states restrict the timing and/or the ability of an insurer to discontinue writing a line of business or to cancel or non-renew certain policies. These regulatory systems also address authorization for lines of business, statutory capital and surplus requirements, limitations on the types and amounts of certain investments, underwriting limitations, transactions with affiliates, dividend limitations, changes in control, premium rates and a variety of other financial and non-financial components of an insurer's business. In recent years, the state insurance regulatory framework has come under increased scrutiny, and some state legislatures have considered or enacted laws that may alter or increase state authority to regulate insurance companies and insurance holding companies. Further, the NAIC and state insurance regulators continually re-examine existing laws and regulations, specifically focusing on modifications to holding company regulations, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws and regulations. Included in these changes is an amendment to insurance holding company regulations that require insurers who are part of a holding company system to file an enterprise risk report to provide the lead insurance regulator with a summary of the company's enterprise risk management (ERM) framework including the material risks within the insurance holding company system that could pose risk to the insurance entities within the holding company system. Insurers having premium volume above certain thresholds, including the Company, are also required to perform at least annually a self-assessment of their current and future risks, including their likely future solvency position (known as an own risk and solvency assessment or ORSA) and file a confidential report with the insurer's lead insurance regulator. The ORSA concept has two primary goals, which are to foster an effective level of ERM at all insurers within the holding company system, and to provide a group wide perspective on risk and capital as a supplement to the legal entity view. ORSA is now included in the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) standards and is in various stages of implementation in the United States, Europe, Canada, and other jurisdictions. It is possible that, as a result of ORSA and the manner in which it may be used by insurance regulators, our states of domicile or other regulatory bodies may require changes in our ERM process (e.g., prescribe the use of specific models or the application of certain assumptions in the Company's models) that have the effect of limiting our ability to write certain risks, limit our risk appetite to write additional business or reduce our capital management flexibility. See "Enterprise Risk Management" herein for further discussion of the Company's ERM. The NAIC and state insurance regulators, as well as the Federal Reserve and Federal Insurance Office, are currently working with the IAIS to develop a global common framework (ComFrame) for the supervision of internationally active insurance groups (IAIGs). If adopted, ComFrame would require the designation of a group-wide supervisor (regulator) for each IAIG and would impose a group capital requirement that would be applied to an IAIG in addition to the current legal entity capital requirements imposed by state insurance regulators. In response to ComFrame, the NAIC is developing a model law that would allow state insurance regulators in the U.S. to be designated as group-wide supervisors for U.S. based IAIGs. Additionally, the NAIC is developing a group capital standard that would be applied to U.S. based insurance groups. These regulatory developments could increase the amount of capital that the Company is required to have and could result in the Company being subject to increased regulatory requirements. In a time of financial uncertainty or a prolonged economic downturn or otherwise, regulators may choose to adopt more restrictive insurance laws and regulations. For example, insurance regulators may choose to restrict the ability of insurance subsidiaries to make payments to their parent companies or reject rate increases due to the economic environment. The state insurance regulators may also increase the statutory capital and surplus requirements for our insurance subsidiaries. In addition, state tax laws that specifically impact the insurance industry, such as premium taxes or other taxes, may be enacted or changed by states to raise revenues. State laws or regulations that are adopted or amended may be more restrictive than current laws or regulations and may result in lower revenues and/or higher costs of compliance and thus could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and limit our growth. Changes in federal regulation could impose significant burdens on us and otherwise adversely impact our results. While the U.S. federal government has not historically regulated the insurance business, in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act) established a Federal Insurance Office (FIO) within the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The FIO has limited regulatory authority and is empowered to gather data and information regarding the insurance industry and insurers. In December 2013, the FIO released a report recommending ways to modernize and improve the system of insurance regulation in the United States. While the report did not recommend full federal regulation of insurance, it did suggest an expanded federal role in some circumstances. In addition, the report suggested that Congress should consider direct federal involvement to fill regulatory gaps identified in the report, should those gaps persist, for example, by considering either establishing a federal coordinating body or a direct regulator of select aspects of the industry, such as large complex institutions or institutions that seek a federal charter, if a law is passed to allow a federal charter. It is not clear as to the extent, if any, the report will lead to regulatory changes or how any such changes would impact the Company. The Dodd-Frank Act also gives the Federal Reserve supervisory authority over a number of nonbank financial services holding companies, including insurance companies, if they are designated by a two-thirds vote of a Financial Stability Oversight Council (the FSOC) as "systemically important financial institutions" (SIFI) or own a bank or thrift. The FSOC, chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, is a group of federal financial regulators, a state insurance regulator and an independent insurance expert. The FSOC considers companies for designation as a SIFI annually and finalized its first set of SIFI designations in 2013. The Company, based upon the FSOC's rules and interpretive guidance, has not been designated as a SIFI. Nonetheless, it is possible that the Council may change its rules or interpretations in the future and conclude that we are a SIFI. If we were designated as a SIFI, the Federal Reserve's supervisory authority could include the ability to impose heightened financial regulation and could impact requirements regarding our capital, liquidity and leverage as well as our business and investment conduct. As a result of the foregoing, the Dodd-Frank Act, or other additional federal regulation that is adopted in the future, could impose significant burdens on us, including impacting the ways in which we conduct our business, increasing compliance costs and duplicating state regulation, and could result in a competitive disadvantage, particularly relative to other insurers that may not be subject to the same level of regulation. Changes in the U.S. regulatory framework could impact the overall competitive environment by imposing additional burdens on us and allowing other competitors not subject to these same burdens to enter or expand their insurance businesses. Even if we are not subject to additional regulation by the federal government, significant financial sector regulatory reform, including the Dodd-Frank Act, could have a significant impact on us. For example, regulatory reform could have an unexpected impact on our rights as a creditor or on our competitive position. In particular, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes assessments to pay for the resolution of systemically important financial institutions that have become insolvent. We (as a financial company with more than $50 billion in assets) could be assessed, and, although any such assessment is required to be risk weighted (i.e., riskier firms pay more), such costs could be material to us and are not currently estimable. Other potential changes in U.S. federal legislation, regulation and/or administrative policies, including the potential repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act (which exempts insurance from most federal regulation) and potential changes in federal taxation, could also significantly harm the insurance industry, including us. A downgrade in our claims-paying and financial strength ratings could adversely impact our business volumes, adversely impact our ability to access the capital markets and increase our borrowing costs. Claims-paying and financial strength ratings are important to an insurer's competitive position. Rating agencies periodically review insurers' ratings and change their ratings criteria; therefore, our current ratings may not be maintained in the future. A downgrade in one or more of our ratings could negatively impact our business volumes because demand for certain of our products may be reduced, particularly because many customers may require that we maintain minimum ratings to enter into, maintain or renew business with us. Additionally, we may find it more difficult to access the capital markets and we may incur higher borrowing costs. If significant losses, including, but not limited to, those resulting from one or more major catastrophes, or significant reserve additions or significant investment losses were to cause our capital position to deteriorate significantly, or if one or more rating agencies substantially increase their capital requirements, we may need to raise equity capital in the future (which we may not be able to do at a reasonable cost or at all, especially at a time of financial market disruption) in order to maintain our ratings or limit the extent of a downgrade. A continued trend of more frequent and severe weather-related catastrophes or a prolonged financial market disruption or economic downturn may lead rating agencies to substantially increase their capital requirements. See also "During or following a period of financial market disruption or economic downturn, our business could be materially and adversely affected." For further discussion about our ratings, see "Item 1 - Business-Ratings." The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to our holding company in sufficient amounts would harm our ability to meet our obligations, pay future shareholder dividends or make future share repurchases. Our holding company relies on dividends from our U.S. insurance subsidiaries to meet our obligations for payment of interest and principal on outstanding debt, to pay dividends to shareholders, to make contributions to our qualified domestic pension plan, to pay other corporate expenses and to make share repurchases. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to our holding company in the future will depend on their statutory capital and surplus, earnings and regulatory restrictions. We are subject to state insurance regulation as an insurance holding company system. Our U.S. insurance subsidiaries are subject to various regulatory restrictions that limit the maximum amount of dividends available to be paid to their parent without prior approval of insurance regulatory authorities. In a time of prolonged economic downturn or otherwise, insurance regulators may choose to further restrict the ability of insurance subsidiaries to make payments to their parent companies. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to our holding company is also restricted by regulations that set standards of solvency that must be met and maintained. The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to our holding company in an amount sufficient to meet our debt service obligations and other cash requirements could harm our ability to meet our obligations, to pay future shareholder dividends and to make share repurchases. Our efforts to develop new products or expand in targeted markets may not be successful and may create enhanced risks. A number of our recent and planned business initiatives involve developing new products or expanding existing products in targeted markets. This includes the following efforts, from time to time, to protect or grow market share: • We may develop products that insure risks we have not previously insured, contain new coverage or coverage terms or contain different commission terms. • We may refine our underwriting processes. • We may seek to expand distribution channels. • We may focus on geographic markets within or outside of the United States where we have had relatively little or no market share. We may not be successful in introducing new products or expanding in targeted markets and, even if we are successful, these efforts may create enhanced risks. Among other risks: • Demand for new products or in new markets may not meet our expectations. • To the extent we are able to market new products or expand in new markets, our risk exposures may change, and the data and models we use to manage such exposures may not be as sophisticated or effective as those we use in existing markets or with existing products. This, in turn, could lead to losses in excess of our expectations. • Models underlying automated underwriting and pricing decisions may not be effective. • Efforts to develop new products or markets have the potential to create or increase distribution channel conflict, such as described above under "-Disruptions to our relationships with our independent agents and brokers could adversely affect us." • In connection with the conversion of existing policyholders to a new product, some policyholders' pricing may increase, while the pricing for other policyholders may decrease, the net impact of which could negatively impact retention and profit margins. • To develop new products or markets, we may need to make substantial capital and operating expenditures, which may also negatively impact results in the near term. If our efforts to develop new products or expand in targeted markets are not successful, our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. We may be adversely affected if our pricing and capital models provide materially different indications than actual results. The profitability of our property and casualty business substantially depends on the extent to which our actual claims experience is consistent with the assumptions we use in pricing our policies. We utilize proprietary and third party models to help us price business in a manner that is intended to be consistent, over time, with actual results and return objectives. We incorporate the Company's historical loss experience, external industry data and economic indices into our modeling processes, and we use various methods, including predictive modeling, forecasting and sophisticated simulation modeling techniques, to analyze loss trends and the risks associated with our assets and liabilities. We also use these modeling processes, analyses and methods in making underwriting, pricing and reinsurance decisions as part of managing our exposure to catastrophes and other extreme adverse events. These modeling processes incorporate numerous assumptions and forecasts about the future level and variability of: interest rates, inflation, capital requirements, and frequency and severity of losses, among others, that are difficult to make and may differ materially from actual results. Whether we use a proprietary or third party model, future experience may be materially different from past and current experience incorporated in a model's forecasts or simulations. This includes the likelihood of events occurring or continuing or the correlation among events. Third party models may provide substantially different indications than what our proprietary modeling processes provide. As a result, third party model estimates of losses can be, and often have been, materially different for similar events in comparison to our proprietary estimates. The differences between third party model estimates and our proprietary estimates are driven by the use of different data sets as well as different assumptions and forecasts regarding the frequency and severity of events and claims arising from the events. If we fail to appropriately price the risks we insure, or fail to change our pricing model to appropriately reflect our current experience, or if our claims experience is more frequent or severe than our underlying risk assumptions, our profit margins may be negatively affected. If we underestimate the frequency and/or severity of extreme adverse events occurring, our financial condition may be adversely affected. If we overestimate the risks we are exposed to, we may overprice our products, and new business growth and retention of our existing business may be adversely affected. As we expand into different markets and geographies, we will write more policies in markets and geographical areas where we have less data specific to these new markets and geographies, and, accordingly, we may be more susceptible to error in our models and strategy. See "Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Catastrophe Modeling." Our business success and profitability depend, in part, on effective information technology systems and on continuing to develop and implement improvements in technology. We depend in large part on our technology systems for conducting business and processing claims, as well as for providing the data and analytics we utilize to manage our business, and thus our business success is dependent on maintaining the effectiveness of existing technology systems and on continuing to develop and enhance technology systems that support our business processes and strategic initiatives in a cost and resource efficient manner. Some system development projects are long-term in nature, may negatively impact our expense ratios as we invest in the projects and may cost more than we expect to complete. In addition, system development projects may not deliver the benefits or perform as expected, or may be replaced or become obsolete more quickly than expected, which could result in operational difficulties, additional costs or accelerated recognition of expenses. If we do not effectively and efficiently manage and upgrade our technology portfolio, including with respect to the technology portfolio of our recently acquired businesses, or if the costs of doing so are higher than we expect, our ability to provide competitive services to new and existing customers in a cost effective manner and our ability to implement our strategic initiatives could be adversely impacted. If we experience difficulties with technology, data and network security, outsourcing relationships, or cloud-based technology, our ability to conduct our business could be negatively impacted. While technology can streamline many business processes and ultimately reduce the cost of operations, technology initiatives present significant risks. Our business is highly dependent upon our employees' ability to perform, in an efficient and uninterrupted fashion, necessary business functions. A shut-down of, or inability to access, one or more of our facilities (including our primary data processing facility); a power outage; or a failure of one or more of our information technology, telecommunications or other systems could significantly impair our ability to perform such functions on a timely basis, particularly if such an interruption lasts for an extended period of time. In the event of a computer virus or disaster such as a natural catastrophe, terrorist attack or industrial accident, our systems could be inaccessible for an extended period of time. In addition, because our information technology and telecommunications systems increasingly interface with and depend on third-party systems, including cloud-based, we could experience service denials or failures of controls if demand for our service exceeds capacity or a third-party system fails or experiences an interruption. Business interruptions and failures of controls could also result if our internal systems do not interface with each other as intended, including as it relates to recently acquired businesses. Business continuity can also be disrupted by an event, such as a pandemic, that renders large numbers of a workforce unable to work as needed, particularly at critical locations; for example, our largest location employs about 20% of our employees. If our business continuity plans did not sufficiently address a business interruption, system failure or service denial, this could result in a deterioration of our ability to write and process new and renewal business, provide customer service, pay claims in a timely manner or perform other necessary business functions. Our operations rely on the reliable and secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. Computer viruses, hackers (including individuals, organizations or rogue states) and employee or vendor misconduct, and other external hazards, could expose our data systems to security breaches, cyber-attacks or other disruptions. In addition, we routinely transmit and receive personal, confidential and proprietary information by e-mail and other electronic means. While we attempt to develop secure transmission capabilities with third-party vendors and others with whom we do business, we may be unable to put in place secure capabilities with all of such vendors and third parties and, in addition, these third parties may not have appropriate controls in place to protect the confidentiality of the information. Like other global companies, our computer systems are regularly subject to and will continue to be the target of computer viruses, malware or other malicious codes, unauthorized access, cyber-attacks or other computer-related penetrations. While we have experienced threats to our data and systems, to date, we are not aware that we have experienced a material cyber-security breach. However, over time, the sophistication of these threats continues to increase. Our administrative and technical controls as well as other preventative actions we take to reduce the risk of cyber incidents and protect our information may be insufficient to detect or prevent unauthorized access, other physical and electronic break-ins, cyber-attacks or other security breaches to our computer systems or those of third parties with whom we do business. In addition, new technology that could result in greater operational efficiency may further expose our computer systems to the risk of cyber-attacks. We have increasingly outsourced certain technology and business process functions to third parties and may continue to do so in the future. If we do not effectively develop, implement and monitor our outsourcing relationships, third party providers do not perform as anticipated, we experience technological or other problems with a transition, or outsourcing relationships relevant to our business process functions are terminated, we may not realize expected productivity improvements or cost efficiencies and may experience operational difficulties, increased costs and a loss of business. Our outsourcing of certain technology and business process functions to third parties may expose us to increased risk related to data security or service disruptions, which could result in monetary and reputational damages or harm to our competitive position. In addition to risks caused by third party providers, our ability to receive services from third party providers outside of the United States might be impacted by cultural differences, political instability, unanticipated regulatory requirements or public policy inside or outside of the United States. The increased risks identified above could expose us to data loss, disruption of service, monetary and reputational damages, competitive disadvantage and significant increases in compliance costs and costs to improve the security and resiliency of our computer systems. The compromise of personal, confidential or proprietary information could also subject us to legal liability or regulatory action under evolving cyber-security, data protection and privacy laws and regulations enacted by the U.S. federal and state governments, Canada, the European Union or other jurisdictions or by various regulatory organizations or exchanges. As a result, our ability to conduct our business and our results of operations might be materially and adversely affected. We are also subject to a number of additional risks associated with our business outside the United States. We conduct business outside the United States primarily in Canada, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In addition, we conduct business in Brazil, primarily through a joint venture, and we have an indirect interest in a joint venture in Colombia. We may also explore opportunities in other countries, including other Latin American countries and other emerging markets such as India. In conducting business outside of the United States, we are also subject to a number of additional risks, particularly in emerging economies. These risks include restrictions such as price controls, capital controls, currency exchange limits, ownership limits and other restrictive or anti-competitive governmental actions or requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our business and our reputation. Following the completion of our acquisition of Dominion, a larger portion of our premiums from outside of the United States is generated in Canada, a substantial portion of which consists of automobile premiums from the province of Ontario, which is a highly regulated market. Our business activities outside the United States may also subject us to currency risk and, in some markets, it may be difficult to effectively hedge that risk, or we may choose not to hedge that risk. In addition, in some markets, we may invest as part of a joint venture with a local counterparty. Because our governance rights may be limited, we may not have control over the ability of the joint venture to make certain decisions and/or mitigate risks it faces, and significant disagreements with a joint venture counterparty may adversely impact our investment. Our business activities outside the United States could subject us to increased volatility in earnings resulting from the need to recognize and subsequently revise a valuation allowance associated with income taxes if we became unable to fully utilize any deferred tax assets, including loss carry-forwards from those foreign operations. Also, political instability, particularly in emerging economies, could result in financial market disruption or an economic downturn in such regions. Our business activities outside the United States also subject us to additional domestic and foreign laws and regulations, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws in other countries that prohibit the making of improper payments to foreign officials. Although we have policies and controls in place that are designed to ensure compliance with these laws, if those controls are ineffective and an employee or intermediary fails to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we could suffer civil and criminal penalties and our business and our reputation could be adversely affected. Some countries, particularly emerging economies, have laws and regulations that lack clarity and, even with local expertise and effective controls, it can be difficult to determine the exact requirements of, and potential liability under, the local laws. In some jurisdictions, including Brazil, parties to a joint venture may, in some circumstances, have liability for some obligations of the venture, and that liability may extend beyond the capital invested. Failure to comply with local laws in a particular market may result in substantial liability and could have a significant and negative effect not only on our business in that market but also on our reputation generally. In addition, competition for skilled employees in developing markets and other non-U.S. locations may be intense. If we are not able to hire, integrate, motivate and retain a sufficient number of employees with the knowledge and background necessary for our global businesses, those businesses and our results of operations may be adversely affected. Regulatory changes outside of the United States, including in Canada and the European Union, could adversely impact our results of operations and limit our growth. Insurance laws or regulations that are adopted or amended in jurisdictions outside the U.S. may be more restrictive than current laws or regulations and may result in lower revenues and/or higher costs of compliance and thus could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and limit our growth. In particular, the European Union's executive body, the European Commission, implemented new capital adequacy and risk management regulations called Solvency II on January 1, 2016 that apply to the Company's businesses across the European Union. Under Solvency II, it is possible that the U.S. parent of a European Union subsidiary could be subject to certain Solvency II requirements if the regulator determines that the subsidiary's capital position is dependent on the parent company and the U.S. company is not already subject to regulations deemed "equivalent" to Solvency II. In addition, regulators in countries where the Company has operations are working with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) (and with the NAIC, the Federal Reserve and FIO in the U.S.) to consider changes to insurance company supervision, including group supervision and group capital requirements. In July 2013, the IAIS published a methodology for identifying "global systemically important insurers" (G-SIIs) and high level policy measures that will apply to the G-SIIs. The methodology and measures were endorsed by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) created by the G-20. Using the IAIS methodology, the FSB, working with national authorities and the IAIS, identified nine insurers that they designated as G-SIIs. The IAIS is working on the policy measures which include higher capital requirements and enhanced supervision. The Company has not been designated as a G-SII by the FSB; however, the FSB updates the list annually, and it is possible that the methodologies could be amended or interpreted differently in the future and the Company could be named as a G-SII. The IAIS also is in the process of developing the Common Framework for the Supervision of Internationally Active Insurance Groups (Comframe). The IAIS released a Consultation Draft in October 2013, which may lead to similar policy measures as those being developed for G-SIIs, including group supervision and an Insurance Capital Standard (i.e., global group capital requirement). The IAIS revised the Comframe guidance based on comments received and is currently in the process of field testing many of the requirements. The Company would be considered an Internationally Active Insurance Group under the current Consultation Draft. It is possible that Comframe, if adopted, could lead to enhanced supervision and higher capital standards on a global basis if the IAIS, the NAIC and the individual states adopt the proposed or similar provisions. While it is not yet known how or if these actions will impact us, such regulation could result in increased costs of compliance, increased disclosure and less flexibility in our capital management, and could adversely impact our results of operations and limit our growth. Loss of or significant restrictions on the use of particular types of underwriting criteria, such as credit scoring, or other data or methodologies, in the pricing and underwriting of our products could reduce our future profitability. Our underwriting profitability depends in large part on our ability to competitively price our products at a level that will adequately compensate us for the risks assumed. As a result, risk selection and pricing through the application of actuarially sound and segmented underwriting criteria is critical. However, laws or regulations, or judicial or administrative findings, could significantly curtail the use of particular types of underwriting criteria. For example, we may use credit scoring as a factor in pricing decisions where allowed by state law. Some consumer groups and/or regulators have alleged that the use of credit scoring violates the law by discriminating against persons belonging to a protected class and are calling for the prohibition or restrictions on the use of credit scoring in underwriting and pricing. A variety of other underwriting criteria and other data or methodologies used in personal and commercial insurance have been and continue to be criticized by regulators, government agencies, consumer groups or individuals on similar or other grounds. Resulting regulatory actions or litigation could result in negative publicity and/or generate adverse rules or findings, such as curtailing the use of important underwriting criteria, or other data or methodologies, each of which could adversely affect our future profitability. Acquisitions and integration of acquired businesses may result in operating difficulties and other unintended consequences. From time to time we may investigate and pursue acquisition opportunities if we believe that such opportunities are consistent with our long-term objectives and that the potential rewards of an acquisition justify the risks. The process of integrating an acquired company or business can be complex and costly, however, and may create unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures. For example, acquisitions may present significant risks, including: • the potential disruption of our ongoing business; • the ineffective integration of, or other difficulties with, underwriting, risk management, claims handling, information technology and actuarial practices; • uncertainties related to an acquiree's reserve estimates and its design and operation of internal controls over financial reporting; • the diversion of management time and resources to acquisition integration challenges; • the loss of key employees; • unforeseen liabilities; • the cultural challenges associated with integrating employees; and • the impact on our financial position and/or credit ratings. Acquired businesses may not perform as projected, any cost savings and other synergies anticipated from the acquisition may not materialize and costs associated with the integration may be greater than anticipated. Acquired businesses may not be successfully integrated, resulting in substantial costs or delays and adversely affecting our ability to compete. Accordingly, our results of operations might be materially and adversely affected. We could be adversely affected if our controls designed to ensure compliance with guidelines, policies and legal and regulatory standards are not effective. Our business is highly dependent on our ability to engage on a daily basis in a large number of insurance underwriting, claim processing and investment activities, many of which are highly complex. These activities often are subject to internal guidelines and policies, as well as legal and regulatory standards. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance that the control system's objectives will be met. If our controls are not effective, it could lead to financial loss, unanticipated risk exposure (including underwriting, credit and investment risk), errors in financial reporting or damage to our reputation. In addition, ineffective controls, including with respect to any joint ventures or recently acquired businesses, could lead to litigation or regulatory action. The volume of claims and amount of damages and penalties claimed in litigation and regulatory proceedings against various types of financial institutions have increased in recent years. Substantial legal liability or significant regulatory action against us could have a material adverse financial impact. See note 16 of notes to our consolidated financial statements herein for a discussion of certain legal proceedings in which we are involved. Our businesses may be adversely affected if we are unable to hire and retain qualified employees. There is significant competition from within the property and casualty insurance industry and from businesses outside the industry for qualified employees, especially those in key positions and those possessing highly specialized underwriting knowledge. Our performance is largely dependent on the talents, efforts and proper conduct of highly-skilled individuals, including our senior executives (many of whom have decades of experience in the insurance industry), and the Board of Directors regularly engages in succession discussions. See "Item 10 - Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance" for more information relating to our executive officers, including our senior leaders. For many of our senior positions, we compete for talent not just with insurance or financial service companies, but with other large companies and other businesses. Our continued ability to compete effectively in our businesses and to expand into new business areas depends on our ability to attract new employees and to retain and motivate our existing employees. If we are not able to successfully attract, retain and motivate our employees, our business, financial results and reputation could be materially and adversely affected. Intellectual property is important to our business, and we may be unable to protect and enforce our own intellectual property or we may be subject to claims for infringing the intellectual property of others. Our success depends in part upon our ability to protect our proprietary trademarks, technology and other intellectual property. See "Item 1 - Other Information-Intellectual Property." We may not, however, be able to protect our intellectual property from unauthorized use and disclosure by others. Further, the intellectual property laws may not prevent our competitors from independently developing trademarks, products and services that are similar to ours. Moreover, the agreements we execute to protect our intellectual property rights may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies in response. Our attempts to patent or register our intellectual property rights in the U.S. and worldwide may not succeed initially or may later be challenged by third parties. Further, the laws of certain countries outside the United States may not adequately protect our intellectual property rights. We may incur significant costs in our efforts to protect and enforce our intellectual property, including the initiation of expensive and protracted litigation, and we may not prevail. Any inability to enforce our intellectual property rights could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to compete. We may be subject to claims by third parties from time to time that our products, services and technologies infringe on their intellectual property rights. In recent years, certain entities have acquired patents in order to allege claims of infringement against companies, including in some cases, us. Any intellectual property infringement claims brought against us could cause us to spend significant time and money to defend ourselves, regardless of the merits of the claims. If we are found to infringe any third-party intellectual property rights, it could result in reputational harm, payment of significant monetary damages, payment of license fees (if licenses are even available to us, on reasonable terms or otherwise) and/or substantial time and expense to redesign our products, services or technologies to avoid the infringement. In addition, we use third party software in some of our products, services and technologies. If any of our software vendors or licensors are faced with infringement claims, we may lose our ability to use such software until the dispute is resolved. If we cannot successfully redesign an infringing product, service or technology (or procure a substitute version), this could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to compete. Changes to existing accounting standards may adversely impact our reported results. As a U.S.-based SEC registrant, we are currently required to prepare our financial statements in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP), as promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), subject to the accounting-related rules and interpretations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). During the last several years, the SEC has been evaluating whether, when and how International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) should be incorporated into the U.S. financial reporting system, including for companies such as us. In December 2014, the SEC indicated that it plans to explore allowing IFRS financial statements or financial information as supplemental information in SEC filings. The FASB and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) have been working on a long-term project to converge U.S. GAAP and IFRS, which included a project on insurance accounting. While the FASB decided during 2014 to retain current U.S. GAAP for property and casualty insurance contracts, the IASB is continuing its development of a new model that is significantly different than current U.S. GAAP. We are not able to predict whether we will choose to, or be required to, adopt IFRS or how the adoption of IFRS (or the convergence of U.S. GAAP and IFRS, including the project on the accounting for insurance contracts) may impact our financial statements in the future. Changes in accounting standards, particularly those that specifically apply to insurance company operations, may impact the content and presentation of our reported financial results and could cause increased volatility in reported earnings, resulting in other adverse impacts on the Company's ratings and cost of capital, and decrease the understandability of our financial results as well as the comparability of our reported results with other insurers. Changes in U.S. tax laws or in the tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate could adversely impact us. Tax laws may change in ways that adversely impact us. For example, federal tax legislation could be enacted to reduce the existing statutory U.S. federal corporate income tax rate from 35%, which would, accordingly, reduce any U.S. deferred tax asset. The amount of any net deferred tax asset is volatile and significantly impacted by changes in unrealized investment gains and losses. The effect of a reduction in a tax rate on net deferred tax assets is required to be recognized, in full, as a reduction of income from continuing operations in the period when enacted and, along with other changes in the tax rules that may increase the Company's actual tax expense, could materially and adversely affect our results of operations. Our investment portfolio has benefited from tax exemptions and certain other tax laws, including, but not limited to, those governing dividends-received deductions and tax credits (such as foreign tax credits). Federal and/or state tax legislation could be enacted in connection with deficit reduction or various types of fundamental tax reform that would lessen or eliminate some or all of the tax advantages currently benefiting us and therefore could materially and adversely impact our results of operations. In addition, such legislation could adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio, particularly changes to the taxation of interest from municipal bonds (which comprise 45% of our investment portfolio as of December 31, 2015) could materially and adversely impact the value of those bonds. Other tax law changes could adversely impact us. The size of the federal deficit, as well as the budget constraints faced by many states and localities, increases the likelihood that Congress and state and local governments will raise revenue by enacting legislation increasing the taxes paid by individuals and corporations. Item 1B.