RLI CORP - Annual Report: 2019 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

​

FORM 10-K

​

​

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

​

or

​

​

For the transition period from                         to                          

​

Commission File Number 001-09463

​

RLI CORP.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

​

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (309) 692-1000

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

​

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: NONE

​

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐

​

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

​

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

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

​

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

​

​

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

​

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2019, based upon the closing sale price of the Common Stock on June 30, 2019 as reported on the New York Stock Exchange, was $3,450,441,098. Shares of Common Stock held directly or indirectly by each reporting officer and director along with shares held by the Company ESOP have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

​

The number of shares outstanding of the Registrant’s Common Stock, $0.01 par value, on February 7, 2020 was 44,919,277.

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

​

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for the 2020 annual meeting of shareholders to be held May 7, 2020, are incorporated herein by reference into Part III of this document, including: “Share Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners,” “Board Meetings and Compensation,” “Compensation Discussion & Analysis,” “Executive Compensation,” “Equity Compensation Plan Information,” “Executive Management,” “Corporate Governance and Board Matters,” “Audit Committee Report” and “Proposal four: Ratification of Selection of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.”

​

Exhibit index is located on pages 115-116 of this document, which lists documents filed as exhibits or incorporated by reference herein.

​

​

Table of Contents

RLI Corp.

Index to Annual Report on Form 10-K

​

​

​

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

​

RLI Corp. was founded in 1965. References to “the Company,” “we,” “our,” “us” or like terms refer to the business of RLI Corp. and its subsidiaries. We underwrite select property and casualty insurance through major subsidiaries collectively known as RLI Insurance Group. We conduct operations principally through three insurance companies. RLI Insurance Company (RLI Ins.), a subsidiary of RLI Corp. and our principal insurance subsidiary, writes multiple lines of insurance on an admitted basis in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company (Mt. Hawley), a subsidiary of RLI Ins., writes excess and surplus lines insurance on a non-admitted basis in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam. Contractors Bonding and Insurance Company (CBIC), a subsidiary of RLI Ins., writes multiple lines of insurance on an admitted basis in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Each of our insurance companies is domiciled in Illinois. We have no material foreign operations.

​

As a specialty insurance company with a niche focus, we offer insurance coverages in the specialty admitted and excess and surplus markets. We distribute our property and casualty insurance through our branch offices that market to wholesale and retail producers. We offer limited coverages on a direct basis to select insureds, as well as various reinsurance coverages. In addition, from time to time, we produce a limited amount of business under agreements with managing general agents under the direction of our product vice presidents.

​

We make our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) available free of charge on our website (rlicorp.com). Information contained on our website is not intended to be incorporated by reference in this annual report and you should not consider that information a part of this annual report. The SEC also maintains a website (http://www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding the Company.

​

In the ordinary course of business, we rely on other insurance companies to share risks through reinsurance. A large portion of the reinsurance is put into effect under contracts known as treaties and, in some instances, by negotiation on each individual risk (known as facultative reinsurance). We have quota share, excess of loss and catastrophe reinsurance contracts that protect against losses over stipulated amounts arising from any one occurrence or event. These arrangements allow the Company to pursue greater diversification of business and serve to limit the maximum net loss on catastrophes and large risks. Reinsurance is subject to certain risks, specifically market risk, which affect the cost of and the ability to secure these contracts, and credit risk, which is the risk that our reinsurers may not pay on losses in a timely fashion or at all. The following table illustrates the degree to which we have utilized reinsurance during the past three years. For an expanded discussion of the impact of reinsurance on our operations, see note 5 to the consolidated financial statements within Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

​

​

SPECIALTY INSURANCE MARKET OVERVIEW

​

The specialty insurance market differs significantly from the standard market. In the standard market, products and coverage are largely uniform with relatively predictable exposures and companies tend to compete for customers on the basis of price. In contrast, the specialty market provides coverage for risks that do not fit the underwriting criteria of the standard carriers. Competition tends to focus less on price and more on availability, coverage, service and other value-based considerations. While specialty market exposures may have higher insurance risks than their standard admitted market counterparts, we manage these risks to achieve higher financial returns. To reach our financial and operational goals, we must have extensive knowledge of, and expertise in, our markets. Many of our risks are underwritten on an individual basis and tailored coverages are employed in order to respond to distinctive risk characteristics. We operate in the specialty admitted insurance market, the excess and surplus insurance market and the specialty reinsurance markets.

Table of Contents

​

SPECIALTY ADMITTED INSURANCE MARKET

​

We write business in the specialty admitted market. Many of these risks are unique and hard to place in the standard admitted market, but for marketing and regulatory reasons, they must remain with an admitted insurance company. The specialty admitted market is subject to greater state regulation than the excess and surplus market, particularly with regard to rate and form filing requirements, restrictions on the ability to exit lines of business, premium tax payments and membership in various state associations, such as state guaranty funds and assigned risk plans. For 2019, our specialty admitted operations produced gross premiums written of $690.2 million, representing approximately 65 percent of our total gross premiums for the year.

​

EXCESS AND SURPLUS INSURANCE MARKET

​

The excess and surplus market focuses on hard-to-place risks. Participating in this market allows the Company to underwrite non-standard risks with more flexible policy forms and unregulated premium rates. This typically results in coverages that are more restrictive and more expensive than in the standard admitted market. The excess and surplus lines regulatory environment and production model also effectively filter submission flow and match market opportunities to our expertise and appetite. According to the 2019 edition of AM Best Aggregate & Averages – Property/Casualty, United States & Canada, the excess and surplus market represented approximately $26 billion, or 4 percent, of the entire $677 billion domestic property and casualty industry in 2018, as measured by direct premiums written. Our excess and surplus operations wrote gross premiums of $351.6 million, or 33 percent, of our total gross premiums written in 2019.

​

SPECIALTY REINSURANCE MARKETS

​

We write business in the specialty reinsurance markets. This business is generally written on a portfolio (treaty) basis. We write contracts on an excess of loss and a proportional basis. Contract provisions are written and agreed upon between the company and its reinsurance clients. The business is typically more volatile as a result of unique underlying exposures and excess and aggregate attachments. For 2019, our specialty reinsurance operations wrote gross premiums of $23.2 million, representing approximately 2 percent of our total gross premiums written for the year.

​

BUSINESS SEGMENT OVERVIEW

​

The segments of our insurance operations are casualty, property and surety. For additional information, see note 12 to the consolidated financial statements within Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

​

CASUALTY SEGMENT

​

Commercial Excess and Personal Umbrella

​

Our commercial excess coverage is written in excess of primary liability insurance provided by other carriers and in excess of primary liability written by the Company. The personal umbrella coverage is written in excess of homeowners’ and automobile liability coverage provided by other carriers, except in Hawaii, where some underlying homeowners’ coverage is written by the Company. Net premiums earned from this business totaled $140.5 million, $124.4 million and $115.5 million, or 17 percent, 16 percent and 16 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

General Liability

​

Our general liability business consists primarily of coverage for third-party liability of commercial insureds including manufacturers, contractors, apartments and mercantile. We also offer coverages for security guards and in the specialized areas of onshore energy-related businesses and environmental liability for underground storage tanks, contractors and asbestos and environmental remediation specialists. Net premiums earned from our general liability business totaled $98.9 million, $93.9 million and $90.3 million, or 12 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Commercial Transportation

​

Our transportation insurance provides commercial automobile liability and physical damage insurance to local, intermediate and long haul truckers, public transportation entities and equipment dealers, along with other types of specialty commercial automobile risks. We also offer incidental, related insurance coverages including general liability, excess liability

Table of Contents

and motor truck cargo. We produce business through independent agents and brokers nationwide. Net premiums earned from this business totaled $83.2 million, $81.1 million and $78.1 million, or 10 percent, 10 percent and 11 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Professional Services

​

We offer professional liability coverages focused on providing errors and omission coverage to small to medium-sized design, technical, computer and miscellaneous professionals. Our product suite for these customers also includes a full array of multi-peril package products including general liability, property, automobile, excess liability and workers’ compensation coverages. This business primarily markets its products through specialty retail agents nationwide. Net premiums earned from the professional services group totaled $81.3 million, $80.0 million and $78.5 million, or 10 percent, 10 percent and 11 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Small Commercial

​

Our small commercial business offers property and casualty insurance coverages to small contractors and other small to medium-sized retail businesses. The coverages included in these packages are predominantly general liability, but also have some inland marine coverages as well as commercial automobile, property and umbrella coverage. These products are primarily marketed through retail agents. Net premiums earned from the small commercial business totaled $55.7 million, $51.5 million and $49.6 million, or 7 percent, 6 percent and 7 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Executive Products

​

We provide a suite of management liability coverages, such as directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance, fiduciary liability and fidelity coverages, for a variety of risk classes, including both public and private businesses. Our publicly traded D&O appetite generally focuses on offering excess Side A D&O coverage (where corporations cannot indemnify the individual directors and officers) as well as excess full coverage D&O. Additionally, we offer representations and warranties coverage for companies involved in mergers and acquisitions, tax liability representations and warranties coverage for companies claiming certain tax credits and excess cyber liability coverage to medium to large-sized public and private businesses. Net premiums earned from the executive products business totaled $27.1 million, $21.3 million and $18.1 million, or 3 percent, 3 percent and 2 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Other Casualty

​

We offer a variety of other smaller products in our casualty segment, including home business insurance, which provides limited liability and property coverage, on and off-site, for a variety of small business owners who work from their own home. We have a quota share reinsurance agreement with Prime Insurance Company and Prime Property and Casualty Insurance Inc., the two insurance subsidiaries of Prime Holdings Insurance Services, Inc. (Prime). We assume general liability, excess, commercial auto, property and professional liability coverages on hard-to-place risks that are written in the excess and surplus and admitted insurance markets. Additionally, we write mortgage reinsurance, which provides credit risk transfer on pools of mortgages, and offer general liability and package coverages through a general binding authority (GBA) group. We provided healthcare liability coverage focused on long-term care and medical professional liability insurance specializing in hard-to-place individuals and group physicians, but exited these businesses on a runoff basis in 2019. Net premiums earned from these lines totaled $71.8 million, $71.3 million and $48.5 million, or 8 percent, 9 percent and 6 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

PROPERTY SEGMENT

​

Marine

​

Our marine coverages include cargo, hull, protection and indemnity, marine liability, as well as inland marine coverages including builders’ risks and contractors’ equipment. Although the predominant exposures are located within the United States, there is some incidental international exposure written within these coverages. Net premiums earned from the marine business totaled $74.9 million, $59.8 million and $50.9 million, or 9 percent, 8 percent and 7 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Table of Contents

Commercial Property

​

Our commercial property coverage consists primarily of excess and surplus lines and specialty insurance such as fire, earthquake and difference in conditions (DIC), which can include earthquake, wind, flood and collapse coverages. We provide insurance for a wide range of commercial and industrial risks, such as office buildings, apartments, condominiums, builders’ risks and certain industrial and mercantile structures. Net premiums earned from the commercial property business totaled $68.3 million, $71.5 million and $63.1 million, or 8 percent, 9 percent and 9 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Specialty Personal

​

We offer specialized homeowners’ insurance in select locations, including homeowners’ and dwelling fire insurance through retail agents in Hawaii. Net premiums earned from specialty personal coverages totaled $19.3 million, $16.9 million and $20.8 million, or 3 percent, 2 percent and 3 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Other Property

​

Our other property coverages consist of newer product offerings, such as general binding authority, and lines which we have recently exited. Net premiums earned from these lines totaled $1.5 million, $1.1 million and $3.5 million, or less than 1 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

SURETY SEGMENT

​

Miscellaneous

​

Our miscellaneous surety coverage includes small bonds for businesses and individuals written through independent insurance agencies throughout the United States. Examples of these types of bonds are license and permit, notary and court bonds. These bonds are usually individually underwritten and utilize extensive automation tools for the underwriting and bond delivery to our agents and principals. Net premiums earned from miscellaneous surety coverages totaled $44.7 million, $47.0 million and $47.2 million, or 5 percent, 6 percent and 6 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Commercial

​

We offer a large variety of commercial surety bonds for medium to large-sized businesses across a broad spectrum of industries, including the financial, healthcare and on and offshore energy, petrochemical and refining industries. These risks are underwritten on an account basis and coverage is marketed through a select number of regional and national brokers with surety expertise. Net premiums earned from commercial surety coverages totaled $43.6 million, $43.4 million and $45.2 million, or 5 percent, 5 percent and 6 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

Contract

​

We offer bonds for small to medium-sized contractors throughout the United States, underwritten on an account basis. Typically, these are performance and payment bonds for individual construction contracts. These bonds are marketed through a select number of insurance agencies that have surety and construction expertise. We also offer bonds for small and emerging contractors that are reinsured through the Federal Small Business Administration. Net premiums earned from contract surety coverages totaled $28.3 million, $28.2 million and $28.6 million, or 3 percent, 4 percent and 4 percent of total net premiums earned for 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

​

MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION

​

We distribute our coverages primarily through branch offices throughout the country that market to wholesale and retail brokers and through independent agents.

​

Table of Contents

BROKERS

​

The largest volume of broker-generated premium is in our commercial property, general liability, commercial surety, commercial excess and commercial transportation coverages. This business is produced through independent wholesale and retail brokers.

​

INDEPENDENT AGENTS

​

We target classes of insurance, such as homeowners’ and dwelling fire, home business, surety and personal umbrella through independent agents. Several of these products involve detailed eligibility criteria, which are incorporated into strict underwriting guidelines and prequalification of each risk using a system accessible by the independent agent. The independent agent cannot bind the risk unless they receive approval from our underwriters or through our automated systems.

​

UNDERWRITING AGENTS

​

We contract with certain underwriting agencies, which have limited authority to bind or underwrite business on our behalf. The underwriting agreements involve strict underwriting guidelines and the agents are subject to audits upon request. These agencies may receive some compensation through contingent profit commission.

​

DIGITAL AND DIRECT

​

We utilize digital efforts to produce and efficiently process and service business including home businesses, high performance drivers, small commercial and personal umbrella risks and surety bonding. On a direct basis, we also assume premium on various reinsurance treaties.

​

COMPETITION

​

Our specialty property and casualty insurance subsidiaries are part of a very competitive industry that is cyclical and historically characterized by periods of high premium rates and shortages of underwriting capacity followed by periods of severe competition and excess underwriting capacity. Within the United States alone, approximately 2,600 companies actively market property and casualty coverages. Our primary competitors in the casualty segment include Arch, Aspen, Berkley, Chubb, CNA, Great American, Great West, Hartford, James River, Kinsale, Lancer, Markel, Protective, RSUI, Sompo, USLI, Travelers and Zurich. Primary competitors in the property segment include Arch, Aspen, Chubb, CNA, Crum and Forster, Great American, Lexington, Sompo and Travelers. Primary competitors in the surety segment are AIG, Arch, AXA XL, Berkley, Chubb, CNA, Great American, Hartford, HCC, Sompo and Travelers. The combination of coverages, service, pricing and other methods of competition vary from line to line. Our principal methods of meeting this competition are innovative coverages, marketing structure and quality service to the agents and policyholders at a fair price. We compete favorably, in part, because of our sound financial base and reputation, as well as our broad, geographic footprint in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam. In the casualty, property and surety areas, we have experienced underwriting specialists in our branch and home offices. We continue to maintain our underwriting and marketing standards by not seeking market share at the expense of earnings. We have a track record of withdrawing from markets when conditions become overly adverse and offering new coverages and programs where the opportunity exists to provide needed insurance coverage with exceptional service on a profitable basis.

​

FINANCIAL STRENGTH RATINGS

​

AM Best financial strength ratings for the industry range from A++ (Superior) to F (In liquidation) with some companies not being rated. Standard & Poor’s financial strength ratings for the industry range from AAA (Extremely strong) to R (Regulatory action). Moody’s financial strength ratings for the industry range from Aaa (Exceptional) to C (Lowest). The following table illustrates the range of ratings assigned by each of the three major rating companies that has issued a financial strength rating on our insurance companies:

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

Publications of AM Best, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s indicate that A and A+ ratings are assigned to those companies that, in their opinion, have a superior ability to meet ongoing insurance obligations, a strong ability to meet financial obligations or a low credit risk, respectively. In evaluating a company’s financial and operating performance, each of the firms review the company’s profitability, leverage and liquidity, as well as the company’s spread of risk, the quality and appropriateness of its reinsurance, the quality and diversification of its assets, the adequacy of its policy and loss reserves, the adequacy of its surplus, its capital structure, its risk management practices and the experience and objectives of its management. These ratings are based on factors relevant to policyholders, agents, insurance brokers and intermediaries and are not specifically related to securities issued by the company.

​

At December 31, 2019, the following ratings were assigned to our insurance companies:

*CBIC is only rated by AM Best

​

For AM Best, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, the financial strength ratings represented above are affirmations of previously assigned ratings. AM Best, in addition to assigning a financial strength rating, also assigns financial size categories. In November 2019, RLI Ins., Mt. Hawley and CBIC, which are collectively rated as a group, were assigned a financial size category of XII (adjusted policyholders’ surplus of between $1 billion and $1.25 billion). As of December 31, 2019, the policyholders’ statutory surplus of RLI Insurance Group totaled $1.0 billion, which continues to result in AM Best’s financial size category XII.

​

REINSURANCE

​

We reinsure a portion of our insurance exposure, paying or ceding to the reinsurer a portion of the premiums received on such policies. Earned premiums ceded to non-affiliated reinsurers totaled $182.2 million, $146.8 million and $129.7 million in 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Insurance is ceded principally to reduce net liability on individual risks and to protect against catastrophic losses. We use reinsurance as an alternative to using our own capital to take risks and reduce volatility. Retention levels are evaluated each year to maintain a balance between the growth in surplus and the cost of reinsurance. Although reinsurance does not legally discharge an insurer from its primary liability for the full amount of the policies, it does make the assuming reinsurer liable to the insurer to the extent of the insurance ceded.

​

Table of Contents

Reinsurance is subject to certain risks, specifically market risk, which affects the cost and ability to secure reinsurance contracts, and credit risk, which relates to the ability to collect from the reinsurer on our claims. We purchase reinsurance from financially strong reinsurers. We evaluate reinsurers’ ability to pay based on their financial results, level of surplus, financial strength ratings and other risk characteristics. A reinsurance committee, comprised of senior management, reviews and approves our security guidelines and reinsurer usage. More than 94 percent of our reinsurance recoverables are due from companies with financial strength ratings of A or better by AM Best and Standard & Poor’s rating services.

​

We utilize both treaty and facultative reinsurance coverage for our risks. Treaty coverage refers to a reinsurance contract under which the company agrees to cede all risks within a defined class of business to the reinsurer, who agrees to provide coverage on all risks ceded without individual underwriting. Facultative coverage is applied to individual risks at the company’s discretion and is subject to underwriting by the reinsurer. It is used for a variety of reasons, including supplementing the limits provided by the treaty coverage or covering risks or perils excluded from treaty reinsurance.

​

Much of our reinsurance is purchased on an excess of loss basis. Under an excess of loss arrangement, we retain losses on a risk up to a specified amount and the reinsurers assume any losses above that amount. We may choose to participate in the reinsurance layers purchased by retaining a percentage of the layer. It is common to find conditions in excess of loss covers such as occurrence limits, aggregate limits and reinstatement premium charges. Occurrence limits cap our recovery for multiple losses caused by the same event. Aggregate limits cap our recovery for all losses ceded during the contract term. We may be required to pay additional premium to reinstate or have access to use the reinsurance limits for potential future recoveries during the same contract year. Some property and surety treaties include reinstatement provisions which require the Company, in certain circumstances, to pay reinstatement premiums after a loss has occurred in order to preserve coverage.

​

Excluding CAT reinsurance, the table below summarizes the reinsurance treaty coverage currently in effect. We may purchase facultative coverage in excess of the per risk limits shown.

​

​

​

At each renewal, we consider any plans to change the underlying insurance coverage we offer, as well as updated loss activity, the level of RLI Insurance Group’s surplus, changes in our risk appetite and the cost and availability of reinsurance treaties. In the last renewal cycle, we maintained similar retentions on most lines of business.

​

PROPERTY REINSURANCE — CATASTROPHE COVERAGE

​

Our property catastrophe (CAT) reinsurance reduces the financial impact of a CAT event involving multiple claims and policyholders, including earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, convective storms, terrorist acts and other aggregating events. Reinsurance limits purchased fluctuate due to changes in the amount of exposure we insure, reinsurance costs, insurance company surplus levels and our risk appetite. In addition, we monitor the expected rate of return for each of our CAT lines of business. At high rates of return, we grow the book of business and may purchase additional reinsurance to increase our

Table of Contents

capacity. As the rate of return decreases, we shrink the book and may purchase less reinsurance as this capacity becomes unnecessary. Our reinsurance coverage for 2018 through 2020 are shown in the following table:

​

Catastrophe Coverages

(in millions)

​

These CAT limits are in addition to the per-occurrence coverage provided by facultative and other treaty coverages. We have participated in the CAT layers purchased by retaining a percentage of each layer throughout this period. Our participation has varied based on price and the amount of risk transferred by each layer. All layers of the treaty include one prepaid reinstatement.

​

Our property CAT program continues to be applied on an excess of loss basis. It attaches after all other reinsurance has been considered. Although covered in one program, limits and attachment points differ for California earthquakes and all other perils. The following charts use information from our CAT modeling software to illustrate our pre-tax net retention resulting from particular events that would generate the gross losses.

​

Catastrophe - California Earthquake

(in millions)

​

Catastrophe - Other (Earthquake outside of California, Wind, Other)

(in millions)

​

In the above table, projected losses for 2020 were estimated based on our exposure as of December 31, 2019, utilizing the treaty structure in place as of January 1, 2020. All previous years were estimated similarly by utilizing the treaty structure in place at the start of the listed year and the exposure at the end of the previous year.

​

The previous tables were generated using theoretical probabilities of events occurring in areas where our portfolio of in-force policies could generate the level of loss illustrated. Actual results could vary significantly from these tables as the actual nature or severity of a particular event cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of accuracy. Reinsurance limits are purchased based on the anticipated losses from large events. The largest losses shown above are possible, but have a low probability of actually occurring. However, there is a remote chance that a larger event could occur. If the actual event losses are larger than anticipated, we could retain additional losses above the limit of our CAT reinsurance.

​

We continuously monitor and quantify our exposure to catastrophes. In the normal course of business, we manage our concentrations of exposures to catastrophic events, primarily by limiting concentrations of locations insured to acceptable levels and by purchasing reinsurance. Exposure and coverage detail is recorded for each risk location. We quantify and monitor

Table of Contents

the total policy limit insured in each geographical region. In addition, we use third-party CAT exposure models and an internally developed analysis to assess each risk to ensure we include an appropriate charge for assumed CAT risks.

​

CAT exposure modeling is inherently uncertain due to the model’s reliance on an infrequent observation of actual events and exposure data, increasing the importance of capturing accurate policy coverage data. The model results are used both in the underwriting analysis of individual risks and at a corporate level for the aggregate book of CAT-exposed business. From both perspectives, we consider the potential loss produced by individual events that represent moderate-to-high loss potential at varying probabilities and magnitudes. In calculating potential losses, we select appropriate assumptions including, but not limited to, loss amplification and loss adjustment expense. We establish risk tolerances at the portfolio level based on market conditions, the level of reinsurance available, changes to the assumptions in the CAT models, rating agency capital constraints, underwriting guidelines and coverages and internal preferences. Our risk tolerances for each type of CAT, and for all perils in aggregate, change over time as these internal and external conditions change.

​

We are required to report to the rating agencies estimated loss to a single event that could include all potential earthquakes and hurricanes contemplated by the CAT modeling software. This reported loss includes the impact of insured losses based on the estimated frequency and severity of potential events, loss adjustment expense, reinstatements paid after the loss, reinsurance recoveries and taxes. Based on the CAT reinsurance treaty purchased on January 1, 2020, there is a 99.6 percent likelihood that the net loss will be less than 15.1 percent of policyholders’ statutory surplus as of December 31, 2019. The exposure levels are within our tolerances for this risk.

​

LOSSES AND SETTLEMENT EXPENSES

​

OVERVIEW

​

Loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) reserves represent our best estimate of ultimate payments for losses and related settlement expenses from claims that have been reported but not paid (case reserves) and losses that have been incurred but not yet reported (IBNR) to the Company. Loss reserves do not represent an exact calculation of liability, but instead represent our estimates, generally utilizing individual claim estimates, actuarial expertise and estimation techniques at a given accounting date. The loss reserve estimates are expectations of what ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost upon final resolution. These estimates are based on facts and circumstances then known to the Company, review of historical settlement patterns, estimates of trends in claims frequency and severity, projections of loss costs, expected interpretations of legal theories of liability and many other factors. In establishing reserves, we also take into account estimated recoveries from reinsurance, salvage and subrogation. The reserves are reviewed regularly by a team of actuaries we employ.

​

Net loss and loss adjustment reserves by product line at year-end 2019 and 2018 are illustrated in the following table. LAE is classified in the table as either allocated loss adjustment expense (ALAE) or unallocated loss adjustment expense (ULAE). ALAE refers to estimates of claim settlement expenses that can be identified with a specific claim or case, while ULAE cannot be identified with a specific claim. For a detailed discussion of loss reserves, refer to our critical accounting policy in Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

​

Table of Contents

​

Following is a table of significant risk factors involved in estimating losses grouped by major product line. We distinguish between loss ratio risk and reserve estimation risk. Loss ratio risk refers to the possible dispersion of loss ratios from year to year due to inherent volatility in the business, such as high severity or aggregating exposures. Reserve estimation risk recognizes the difficulty in estimating a given year’s ultimate loss liability. As an example, our property CAT business (included below in other property) has significant variance in year over year results; however, its reserving estimation risk is relatively moderate.

​

Table of Contents

Significant Risk Factors

​

​

On a quarterly basis, actuaries perform a ground-up reserve study of the expected value of the unpaid loss and LAE derived using multiple standard actuarial methodologies. In addition, an emergence analysis is completed quarterly to determine if further adjustments are necessary. The purpose of this analysis is to provide validation of our carried loss reserves. These estimates are then compared to the carried loss reserves to determine the appropriateness of the current reserve balance.

​

The methodologies we have chosen to incorporate are a function of data availability and are reflective of our own book of business. From time to time, we evaluate the need to add supplementary methodologies. New methods are incorporated if it is believed they improve the estimate of our ultimate loss and LAE liability. All of the actuarial methods eventually converge to the same estimate as an accident year matures. Our core methodologies are listed below with a short description and their relative strengths and weaknesses:

​

Paid Loss Development — Historical payment patterns for prior claims are used to estimate future payment patterns for current claims. These patterns are applied to current payments by accident year to yield an expected ultimate loss.

Table of Contents

​

Strengths: The method reflects only the claim dollars that have been paid and is not subject to case-basis reserve changes or changes in case reserve practices.

​

Weaknesses: External claims environment changes can impact the rate at which claims are settled and losses paid (e.g. increase in attorney involvement or change in legal precedent). Adjustments to reflect changes in payment patterns on a prospective basis are difficult to quantify. For losses that have occurred recently, payments can be minimal and thus early estimates are subject to significant instability.

​

Incurred Loss Development — Historical case-incurred patterns (paid losses plus case reserves) for past claims are used to estimate future case-incurred amounts for current claims. These patterns are applied to current case-incurred losses by accident year to yield an expected ultimate loss.

​

Strengths: Losses are reported more quickly than paid, therefore, the estimates stabilize sooner. The method reflects more information in the analysis than the paid loss development method.

​

Weaknesses: Method involves additional estimation risk if significant changes to case reserving practices have occurred.

​

Case Reserve Development — Patterns of historical development in reported losses relative to historical case reserves are determined. These patterns are applied to current case reserves by accident year and the result is combined with paid losses to yield an expected ultimate loss.

​

Strengths: Like the incurred development method, this method benefits from using the additional information available in case reserves that is not available from paid losses only. It also can provide a more reasonable estimate than other methods when the proportion of claims still open for an accident year is unusually high or low.

​

Weaknesses: It is subject to the risk of changes in case reserving practices or philosophy. It may provide unstable estimates when an accident year is immature and more of the IBNR is expected to come from unreported claims rather than development on reported claims and when accident years are very mature with infrequent case reserves.

​

Expected Loss Ratio — Historical loss ratios, in combination with projections of frequency and severity trends, as well as estimates of price and exposure changes, are analyzed to produce an estimate of the expected loss ratio for each accident year. The expected loss ratio is then applied to the earned premium for each year to estimate the expected ultimate losses. The current accident year expected loss ratio is also the prospective loss and ALAE ratio used in our initial IBNR generation process.

​

Strengths: Reflects an estimate independent of how losses are emerging on either a paid or a case reserve basis. This method is particularly useful in the absence of historical development patterns or where losses take a long time to emerge.

​

Weaknesses: Ignores how losses are actually emerging and thus produces the same estimate of ultimate loss regardless of favorable/unfavorable emergence.

​

Paid and Incurred Bornhuetter/Ferguson (BF) — This approach blends the expected loss ratio method with either the paid or incurred loss development method. In effect, the BF methods produce weighted average indications for each accident year. As an example, if the current accident year for commercial automobile liability is estimated to be 20 percent paid, then the paid loss development method would receive a weight of 20 percent and the expected loss ratio method would receive an 80 percent weight. Over time, this method will converge with the ultimate estimated by the respective loss development method.

​

Strengths: Reflects actual emergence that is favorable/unfavorable, but assumes remaining emergence will continue as previously expected. Does not overreact to the early emergence (or lack of emergence) where patterns are most unstable.

​

Weaknesses: Could potentially understate favorable or unfavorable development by putting weight on the expected loss ratio.

​

In most cases, multiple estimation methods will be valid for the particular facts and circumstances of the claim liabilities being evaluated. Each estimation method has its own set of assumption variables and its own advantages and disadvantages, with no single estimation method being better than the others in all situations, and no one set of assumption variables being meaningful for all product line components. The relative strengths and weaknesses of the particular estimation methods, when

Table of Contents

applied to a particular group of claims, can also change over time. Therefore, the weight given to each estimation method will likely change by accident year and with each evaluation.

​

The actuarial central estimates typically follow a progression that places significant weight on the BF methods when accident years are younger and claim emergence is immature. As accident years mature and claims emerge over time, increasing weight is placed on the incurred development method, the paid development method and the case reserve development method. For product lines with faster loss emergence, the progression to greater weight on the incurred and paid development methods occurs more quickly.

​

For our long and medium-tail products, the BF methods are typically given the most weight for the first 36 months of evaluation. These methods are also predominant for the first 12 months of evaluation for short-tail lines. Beyond these time periods, our actuaries apply their professional judgment when weighting the estimates from the various methods deployed but place significant reliance on the expected stage of development in normal circumstances.

​

Judgment can supersede this natural progression if risk factors and assumptions change, or if a situation occurs that amplifies a particular strength or weakness of a methodology. Extreme projections are critically analyzed and may be adjusted, given less credence or discarded altogether. Internal documentation is maintained that records any substantial changes in methods or assumptions from one loss reserve study to another.

​

RESERVE SENSITIVITIES

​

There are three major parameters that have significant influence on our actuarial estimates of ultimate liabilities by product. They are the actual losses that are reported, the expected loss emergence pattern and the expected loss ratios used in the analyses. If the actual losses reported do not emerge as expected, it may cause the Company to challenge all or some of our previous assumptions. We may change expected loss emergence patterns, the expected loss ratios used in our analysis and/or the weights we place on a given actuarial method. The impact will be much greater and more leveraged for products with longer emergence patterns. Our general liability product is an example of a product with a relatively long emergence pattern. The following chart illustrates the sensitivity of our general liability reserve estimates to these key parameters. We believe the scenarios to be reasonable as similar favorable variations have occurred in recent years. For example, our general liability emergence has ranged from 8 percent to 22 percent favorable and our management liability emergence has ranged from 1 percent to 34 percent adverse over the last three years, while our overall emergence for all products combined has ranged from 9 percent to 33 percent favorable. The numbers below are the changes in estimated ultimate loss and ALAE in millions of dollars as of December 31, 2019, resulting from the change in the parameters shown. These parameters were applied to a general liability net loss and LAE reserve balance of $234.6 million, in addition to associated ULAE and latent liability reserves, at December 31, 2019.

​

​

There are often significant inter-relationships between our reserving assumptions that have offsetting or compounding effects on the reserve estimate. Thus, in almost all cases, it is impossible to discretely measure the effect of a single assumption or construct a meaningful sensitivity expectation that holds true in all cases. The scenario above is representative of general liability, one of our largest and longest-tailed products. It is unlikely that all of our products would have variations as wide as illustrated in the example. It is also unlikely that all of our products would simultaneously experience favorable or unfavorable loss development in the same direction or at their extremes during a calendar year. Because our portfolio is made up of a

Table of Contents

diversified mix of products, there would ordinarily be some offsetting favorable and unfavorable emergence by product as actual losses start to emerge and our loss estimates become more reliable.

​

OPERATING RATIOS

​

PREMIUMS TO SURPLUS RATIO

​

The following table shows, for the periods indicated, our insurance subsidiaries’ statutory ratios of net premiums written to policyholders’ surplus. While there is no statutory requirement applicable to the Company that establishes a permissible net premiums written to surplus ratio, guidelines established by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) provide that this ratio should generally be no greater than 3 to 1. While the NAIC provides this general guideline, rating agencies often require a more conservative ratio to maintain strong or superior ratings.

​

​

COMBINED RATIO AND STATUTORY COMBINED RATIO

​

Our underwriting experience is best indicated by our combined ratio, which is the sum of (a) the ratio of incurred losses and settlement expenses to net premiums earned (loss ratio) and (b) the ratio of policy acquisition costs and other operating expenses to net premiums earned (expense ratio). The difference between the combined ratio and 100 reflects the per-dollar rate of underwriting income or loss, with ratios below 100 indicating underwriting profit and ratios above 100 indicating underwriting loss.

​