GENERAL

EMC Insurance Group Inc. is an insurance holding company that was incorporated in Iowa in 1974 by Employers Mutual Casualty Company (Employers Mutual) and became a public company in 1982 following the initial public offering of its common stock.  EMC Insurance Group Inc. is approximately 59 percent owned by Employers Mutual, a multiple-line property and casualty insurance company organized as an Iowa mutual insurance company in 1911 that is licensed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  The term “Company” is used interchangeably to describe EMC Insurance Group Inc. (Parent Company only) and EMC Insurance Group Inc. and its subsidiaries.  Employers Mutual and all of its subsidiaries (including the Company) and an affiliate are referred to as the “EMC Insurance Companies.”

The Company conducts operations in property and casualty insurance and reinsurance through its subsidiaries.  The Company primarily focuses on the sale of commercial lines of property and casualty insurance to small and medium-sized businesses.  These products are sold through independent insurance agents who are supported by a decentralized network of branch offices.  Although the Company actively markets its insurance products in 40 states, the majority of its business is marketed and generated in the Midwest.

The Company conducts its insurance business through two business segments as follows:

Illinois EMCASCO was formed in Illinois in 1976 (and was re-domesticated to Iowa in 2001), Dakota Fire was formed in North Dakota in 1957 and EMCASCO was formed in Iowa in 1958, all for the purpose of writing property and casualty insurance.  EMC Reinsurance Company was formed in 1981 to assume reinsurance business from Employers Mutual.  The Company’s excess and surplus lines insurance agency, EMC Underwriters, LLC, was formed in Iowa in 1975 and was acquired by the Company in 1985.  Effective December 31, 1998, the excess and surplus lines insurance agency was converted to a limited liability company and the ownership was contributed to EMCASCO.

Property and casualty insurance is the most significant segment of the Company’s business, totaling 76 percent of consolidated premiums earned in 2013 .  The property and casualty insurance operations are integrated with the property and casualty insurance operations of Employers Mutual through participation in a reinsurance pooling agreement.  Because the Company conducts its property and casualty insurance operations together with Employers Mutual through the reinsurance pooling agreement, the Company shares the same business philosophy, management, employees and facilities as Employers Mutual and offers the same types of insurance products.  For a discussion of the reinsurance pooling agreement and its benefits, please see “Organizational Structure – Property and Casualty Insurance” below.

Reinsurance operations are conducted through EMC Reinsurance Company, and represented 24 percent of consolidated premiums earned in 2013 .  The principal business activity of EMC Reinsurance Company is to assume, through a quota share reinsurance agreement, the voluntary reinsurance business written directly by Employers Mutual with unaffiliated insurance companies (subject to certain limited exceptions).  EMC Reinsurance Company also writes a relatively small amount of assumed reinsurance business on a direct basis (outside the quota share reinsurance agreement).  For a discussion of the quota share reinsurance agreement and its benefits, please see “Organizational Structure – Reinsurance” below.

The Company’s insurance agency, EMC Underwriters, LLC, specializes in marketing excess and surplus lines of insurance.  The excess and surplus lines markets provide insurance coverage at negotiated rates for risks that are not acceptable to licensed insurance companies.  EMC Underwriters accesses this market by working through independent agents and functions as managing underwriter for excess and surplus lines insurance for  the pool participants.  The Company derives income from this business based on the fees and commissions earned through placement of the business, as opposed to the underwriting of the risks associated with that business.

Organizational Structure

Property and Casualty Insurance

The Company’s three property and casualty insurance subsidiaries and two subsidiaries and an affiliate of Employers Mutual (Union Insurance Company of Providence, EMC Property & Casualty Company and Hamilton Mutual Insurance Company) are parties to reinsurance pooling agreements with Employers Mutual (collectively the “pooling agreement”).  Under the terms of the pooling agreement, each company cedes to Employers Mutual all of its insurance business, with the exception of any voluntary reinsurance business assumed from nonaffiliated insurance companies, and assumes from Employers Mutual an amount equal to its participation in the pool.  All premiums, losses, settlement expenses, and other underwriting and administrative expenses, excluding the voluntary reinsurance business assumed by Employers Mutual from nonaffiliated insurance companies, are prorated among the parties on the basis of participation in the pool.  Employers Mutual negotiates reinsurance agreements that provide protection to the pool and each of its participants, including protection against losses arising from catastrophic events.  The aggregate participation of the Company’s property and casualty insurance subsidiaries in the pool is 30 percent.

All transactions occurring under the pooling agreement are based on statutory accounting principles. Certain adjustments are made to the statutory-basis amounts assumed by the Company's property and casualty insurance subsidiaries to bring the amounts into compliance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Operations of the pool give rise to inter-company balances with Employers Mutual, which are generally settled during the subsequent month.  The investment and income tax activities of the pool participants are not subject to the pooling agreement.  The pooling agreement provides that Employers Mutual will make up any shortfall or difference resulting from an error in its systems and/or computation processes that would otherwise result in the required restatement of the pool participants’ financial statements.

The purpose of the pooling agreement is to spread the risk of an exposure insured by any of the pool participants among all of the companies.  The particular benefits that the Company’s property and casualty insurance subsidiaries realize from participating in the pooling agreement include the following:

The amount of insurance a property and casualty insurance company writes under industry standards is commonly expressed as a multiple of its surplus calculated in accordance with statutory accounting practices.  Generally, a ratio of 3 or less is considered satisfactory by state insurance departments.  The ratios of the pool participants for the past three years are as follows:

(1)       The ratios for these companies reflect the issuance of an aggregate $25,000 of surplus notes to Employers Mutual.  Surplus notes are considered to be a component of surplus for statutory reporting purposes; however, under GAAP, surplus notes are considered to be debt and are reported as a liability in the Company’s financial statements.

Reinsurance

The Company’s reinsurance subsidiary is party to a quota share reinsurance retrocessional agreement (the “quota share agreement”) and an excess of loss reinsurance agreement (the “excess of loss agreement”), with Employers Mutual.  Under the terms of the quota share agreement, the reinsurance subsidiary assumes 100 percent of Employers Mutual’s assumed reinsurance business, subject to certain exceptions.  Under the terms of the excess of loss agreement for 2013 (covering both business assumed from Employers Mutual through the quota share agreement, as well as business obtained outside the quota share agreement), the reinsurance subsidiary retained the first $4,000 of losses per event, and also retained 20.0 percent of any losses between $4,000 and $10,000 and 10.0 percent of any losses between $10,000 and $50,000 .  During 2012 and 2011 , all losses associated with any one event above $4,000 and $3,000 , respectively, were ceded to Employers Mutual.  The cost of the excess of loss reinsurance protection is 9.0 percent for 2013 ( 10.0 percent in 2012 and 2011 ) of the reinsurance subsidiary’s total assumed reinsurance premiums written.

The terms of the excess of loss agreement have been further revised beginning January 1, 2014. Effective January 1, 2014, the cost of the excess of loss coverage will decrease from the current 9.0 percent of total assumed reinsurance premiums to 8.0 percent of total assumed reinsurance premiums (no change to the amount of losses retained).

All transactions occurring under the quota share agreement and the excess of loss agreement are based on statutory accounting principles. Certain adjustments are made to the statutory-basis amounts assumed by the Company's reinsurance subsidiary to bring the amounts into compliance with GAAP.

The reinsurance subsidiary does not directly reinsure any of the insurance business written by Employers Mutual or the other pool participants; however, Employers Mutual assumes reinsurance business from the Mutual Reinsurance Bureau (MRB) underwriting association, which provides a small amount of reinsurance protection to the members of the EMC Insurance Companies pooling agreement.  As a result, the reinsurance subsidiary’s assumed exposures include a small portion of the EMC Insurance Companies’ direct business, after ceded reinsurance protections purchased by MRB are applied.  In addition, the reinsurance subsidiary does not reinsure any “involuntary” facility or pool business that Employers Mutual assumes pursuant to state law.  The reinsurance subsidiary also assumes all foreign currency exchange gain/loss associated with contracts incepting on January 1, 2006 and thereafter that are subject to the quota share agreement.  

Operations of the quota share and excess of loss agreements give rise to inter-company balances with Employers Mutual, which are settled within 45 days after the end of each quarter.  The investment and income tax activities of the reinsurance subsidiary are not subject to the quota share agreement.

Under the terms of the quota share agreement, the reinsurance subsidiary receives reinstatement premium income that is collected by Employers Mutual from the ceding companies when reinsurance coverage is reinstated after a loss event; however, the cap on losses assumed per event contained in the excess of loss agreement is automatically reinstated without cost.

Country Mutual Insurance Company terminated its participation in MRB effective January 1, 2011.  As a result, Employers Mutual was a one-fourth participant in MRB in 2011 and 2012. Effective January 1, 2013, Church Mutual Insurance Company (Church Mutual) became a member of MRB.  As a result, Employers Mutual was a one-fifth participant in 2013.  

Property and Casualty Insurance and Reinsurance

The Company does not have any employees of its own.  Employers Mutual performs all operations for all of its subsidiaries and affiliate.  Such services include data processing, claims, financial, actuarial, legal, auditing, marketing and underwriting.  Employers Mutual allocates a portion of the cost of these services to its subsidiaries that do not participate in the pooling agreement based upon a number of criteria, including usage of the services and the number of transactions.  The remaining costs are charged to the pooling agreement and each pool participant shares in the total cost in accordance with its pool participation percentage.

Investment expenses are based on actual expenses incurred by the Company plus an allocation of other investment expenses incurred by Employers Mutual, which is based on a weighted-average of total invested assets and number of investment transactions.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION ABOUT INDUSTRY SEGMENTS

For information concerning the Company’s revenues, results of operations and identifiable assets attributable to each of its industry segments over the past three years, see note 7 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements under Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

Principal Products

Property and Casualty Insurance

The Company’s property and casualty insurance subsidiaries and the other parties to the pooling agreement underwrite both commercial and personal lines of property and casualty insurance.  Those coverages consist of the following types of insurance:

Commercial Lines

Personal Lines

The following table sets forth the aggregate direct premiums written of all parties to the pooling agreement for the three years ended December 31, 2013 , by line of business.

Reinsurance

As previously noted, the reinsurance subsidiary primarily assumes the voluntary reinsurance business written directly by Employers Mutual with unaffiliated insurance companies (subject to certain limited exceptions).  Employers Mutual writes both pro rata and excess of loss reinsurance for unaffiliated insurance companies.  Pro rata reinsurance is a form of reinsurance in which the reinsurer assumes a stated percentage of all premiums, losses and related expenses in a given class of business.  In contrast, excess of loss reinsurance provides coverage for a portion of losses incurred by an insurer which exceed predetermined retention limits.

The following table sets forth the net premiums written of the reinsurance subsidiary for the three years ended December 31, 2013 , by line of business.  The large increase in the marine/aviation line of business in 2012 is due to a new offshore energy and liability proportional account.  The large decrease in the property and casualty line of business in 2012 is due to the cancellation of a large pro rata account written by MRB.  In connection with the cancellation of this account, the reinsurance segment recorded a $3,406 portfolio adjustment decrease in premiums written that offset a corresponding decrease in unearned premiums. Premiums written in 2013 reflect a decrease in Employers Mutual’s participation in MRB upon the addition of a new member effective January 1, 2013.  This reduced Employers Mutual’s participation from a one-fourth share to a one-fifth share. Portfolio adjustments to premiums written were recorded in 2013 ($585 decrease) and 2011 ($1,023 increase) to offset corresponding changes in unearned premiums recognized in connection with the changes in participation in MRB.   Nine percent ( 10.0 percent in 2012 and 2011 ) of the reinsurance subsidiary’s assumed premiums written (including the portfolio adjustments described above) were ceded back to Employers Mutual in accordance with the terms of the excess of loss agreement.

Marketing and Distribution

Property and Casualty Insurance

The pool participants market a wide variety of commercial and personal lines insurance products through 16 branch offices, which actively write business through independent agents in 40 states.  The pool participants’ products are marketed exclusively through a network of over 2,100 local independent agency relationships through 3,900 offices.  The pool participants primarily focus on the sale of commercial lines of property and casualty insurance to small and medium-sized businesses, which are considered to be policyholders that pay less than $100 in annual premiums.  The pool participants also seek to provide more than one policy to a given customer, because this “account selling” strategy diversifies risks and generally improves underwriting results.

The pool participants wrote approximately $1.4 billion in direct premiums in 2013 , with 88 percent of this business coming from commercial lines products and 12 percent coming from personal lines products.  Although a majority of the pool participants’ business is generated by sales in the Midwest, Employers Mutual’s branch offices are located across the country to take advantage of local market conditions and opportunities, as well as to spread risk geographically.  Each branch office performs its own underwriting, claims, marketing and risk management functions according to policies and procedures established and monitored by the home office.  This decentralized network of branch offices allows the pool participants to develop marketing strategies, products and pricing that target the needs of individual marketing territories and take advantage of different opportunities for profit in each market.  This operating structure also enables the pool participants to develop close relationships with their agents and customers.

Although each branch office offers a slightly different combination of products, the branches generally target three customer segments:

The pool participants write a number of target market, safety dividend group and EMC Choice programs throughout the country, and have developed a strong reputation for these programs within the marketplace.  These programs provide enhanced insurance protection to businesses or institutions that have similar hazards and exposures, and are willing to implement loss prevention programs.  These groups include public schools, small municipalities, petroleum marketers, contractors and mobile home parks.  As an example, the pool participants write coverage for approximately 1,500 school districts throughout the Midwest.  These programs have been successful because they offer risk management products and services that are targeted to the needs of the group members through a local independent agent.

The following table sets forth the geographic distribution of the aggregate direct premiums written of all parties to the pooling agreement for the three years ended December 31, 2013 .

* Includes all other jurisdictions, none of which accounted for more than 3 percent.

Reinsurance

The reinsurance subsidiary currently obtains 96 percent of its business from Employers Mutual through the quota share agreement, and writes 4 percent directly.  The reinsurance subsidiary relies on the financial strength of Employers Mutual to write reinsurance business, as well as the competitive advantage that Employers Mutual has by virtue of being licensed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  Reinsurance marketing is undertaken by Employers Mutual in its role as the direct writer of the reinsurance business; however, the reinsurance subsidiary is utilized in the marketing efforts to help differentiate the reinsurance business from the direct insurance business that is written by Employers Mutual and the other pool participants.

The reinsurance business is derived from two sources.  Approximately 88 percent of the reinsurance subsidiary’s assumed reinsurance premiums earned in 2013 were generated through the activities of Employers Mutual’s Home Office Reinsurance Assumed Department (also known as “HORAD”).  The reinsurance business written by HORAD is brokered through independent intermediaries.  As a result, the risks assumed by HORAD do not materially overlap with the risks assumed through MRB (discussed below).  The risks assumed through HORAD are directly underwritten by Employers Mutual.  As such, Employers Mutual has discretion with respect to the type and size of risks which it assumes and services through these activities.  Since the reinsurance subsidiary utilizes Employers Mutual’s underwriting personnel and systems to process its direct business, HORAD also includes the business written directly by the reinsurance subsidiary.

The remaining 12 percent of the reinsurance subsidiary’s assumed reinsurance premiums earned in 2013 were generated through Employers Mutual’s participation in MRB, an unincorporated association through which Employers Mutual and other unaffiliated insurance companies participate in a voluntary reinsurance pool to meet the reinsurance needs of small and medium-sized, unaffiliated mutual insurance companies.  Employers Mutual has participated in MRB since 1957.  Effective January 1, 2013, Church Mutual became a member of MRB.  As a result, Employers Mutual became a one-fifth participant in MRB, down from its previous one-fourth participation.  MRB is controlled by a board of directors composed of the five member companies, including one representative designated by Employers Mutual.  As a member of this organization, Employers Mutual assumes its proportionate share of the risks ceded to MRB by unaffiliated insurers.  Since MRB is structured on a joint liability basis, Employers Mutual, and therefore the Company’s reinsurance subsidiary, would be obligated with respect to the proportionate share of risks assumed by the other participants in the event they were unable to perform.  MRB, which is operated by an independent management team, manages assumed risks through typical underwriting practices, including loss exposure controls provided through reinsurance coverage obtained for the benefit of MRB.  The reinsurance risks for MRB arise primarily from the Northeast and Midwest markets.  Underwriting of risks and pricing of coverage is performed by MRB management under general guidelines established by Employers Mutual and the other participating insurers.  Except for this general oversight, Employers Mutual has only limited control over the risks assumed by, and the operating results of, MRB.  Because of the joint liability structure, MRB participating companies must generally maintain a rating of “A-” (Excellent) or above from A.M. Best Company, Inc. and meet certain other standards.  During 2012, the rating of one of the members was reduced to "B++".  The other participating companies continue to monitor the financial strength of this member, and have determined that removal of this member is not warranted at this time.

The following table sets forth the geographic distribution of the premiums written of the reinsurance subsidiary (gross of the amount ceded to Employers Mutual in connection with the excess of loss agreement) for the three years ended December 31, 2013 .

* Includes all other foreign jurisdictions, none of which accounted for more than 3 percent.

Employers Mutual emphasizes writing excess of loss reinsurance business in its HORAD operation and works to increase its participation on existing contracts that have had favorable terms and/or results.  Employers Mutual strives to be flexible in the types of reinsurance products it offers, but generally limits its writings to direct reinsurance business, rather than providing retrocessional covers.  A trend in the reinsurance marketplace is for “across the board” participation on excess of loss reinsurance contracts.  As a result, reinsurance companies must be willing to participate on all layers offered under a specific contract in order to be considered viable reinsurers.

It is customary in the reinsurance business for the assuming company to compensate the ceding company for the acquisition expenses incurred in the generation of the business.  Commissions incurred by the reinsurance subsidiary under the quota share agreement with Employers Mutual amounted to $26,114 in 2013 .  During 2013 , the reinsurance subsidiary ceded to Employers Mutual 9.0 percent of its total assumed reinsurance premiums written from all sources as premium for the excess of loss protection, which amounted to $12,761 .  The reinsurance subsidiary also assumes all foreign currency exchange gain/loss associated with contracts incepting on January 1, 2006 and thereafter that are subject to the quota share agreement.  The net foreign currency exchange gain assumed by the reinsurance subsidiary in 2013 was $8 .

Competition

Property and Casualty Insurance

The property and casualty insurance marketplace is very competitive.  The pool participants compete in the United States insurance market with numerous insurers, many of which have substantially greater financial resources.  Competition in the types of insurance in which the pool participants are engaged is based on many factors, including the perceived overall financial strength of the insurer, industry ratings, premiums charged, contract terms and conditions, services offered, speed of claim payments, reputation and experience.  Because the pool participants’ insurance products are marketed exclusively through independent agencies, they face competition to retain qualified agencies, as well as competition within the agencies. The pool participants also compete with direct writers, who utilize salaried employees and generally offer their products at a lower cost; exclusive agencies, who write insurance business for only one company; and to a lesser extent, internet-based enterprises.  Employers Mutual’s decentralized network of 16 branch offices allows the pool participants to enhance business relationships with agents and customers and develop products, marketing strategies and pricing parameters targeted to individual territories.  The pool participants also utilize a company-paid trip for qualified agents and a profit-sharing plan as incentives for the independent agencies to place high-quality insurance business with them.

Reinsurance

Employers Mutual, in writing reinsurance business through its HORAD operation, competes in the global reinsurance market with numerous reinsurance companies, many of which have substantially greater financial resources.  Competition for reinsurance business is based on many factors, including the perceived financial strength of the reinsurer, industry ratings, stability in products offered and licensing status.  Some ceding companies have tended to favor large, highly-capitalized reinsurance companies who are able to provide “mega” line capacity for multiple lines of business.

While reinsurer competition for national and regional company business is growing, the Company believes that MRB has a competitive advantage in the smaller mutual company market that it serves due to its low operating costs.  MRB understands the needs of the smaller company market and operates at a very low expense ratio, enabling it to offer reinsurance coverage (on business that generally presents less risk) to an under-served market at lower margins.  However, due to growth in the reinsurance intermediary marketplace, the size of this under-served market has declined.

A.M. Best Company, Inc. Ratings

Property and Casualty Insurance

A.M. Best Company, Inc. (A.M. Best) rates insurance companies based on their relative financial strength and ability to meet their contractual obligations.  During 2013, the Company’s property and casualty insurance subsidiaries' financial strength rating was raised from "A-" to “A” (Excellent) in their capacity as participants in the pooling agreement.  A.M. Best re-evaluates its ratings from time to time (normally on an annual basis) and there can be no assurance that the Company’s property and casualty insurance subsidiaries and the other pool participants will maintain their current rating in the future.  Management believes that an A.M. Best rating of “A-” (Excellent) or better is important to the Company’s business since many insureds require that companies with which they insure be so rated.  A.M. Best’s publications indicate that the “A“ (Excellent)  rating is assigned to companies that have achieved excellent overall performance and have a strong ability to meet their obligations over a long period of time.  A downgrade of the Company’s property and casualty insurance subsidiaries’ rating (particularly below "A-") would adversely affect the Company’s competitive position and make it more difficult for it to market its products, and retain its existing agents and policyholders.  A.M. Best’s ratings are based upon factors of concern to policyholders and insurance agents, and are not directed toward the protection of investors.

Reinsurance

The most recent A.M. Best Property Casualty Key Rating Guide gives the Company’s reinsurance subsidiary a financial strength rating of “A” (Excellent).  However, because the majority of the reinsurance business assumed by the reinsurance subsidiary is produced by Employers Mutual, the rating of the reinsurance subsidiary is not critical to the Company’s reinsurance operations.  The rating of Employers Mutual is, however, critical to the Company’s reinsurance operations, as the unaffiliated insurance companies that cede business to Employers Mutual view the rating as an indication of Employers Mutual’s ability to meet its obligations to those insurance companies.  Employers Mutual’s rating was increased from "A-" to "A" (Excellent) during 2013. This rating increase aids in marketing efforts because some insurance companies require a rating of “A” (Excellent) or higher.  A downgrade of Employers Mutual’s rating (particularly below "A-") would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s reinsurance subsidiary, as a downgrade would negatively impact Employers Mutual’s ability to write reinsurance business and, consequently, to cede that business to the Company’s reinsurance subsidiary.

(1)       The 2013 expense ratio and combined trade ratio for “reinsurance” and “total insurance operations” reflect $532 of negative premiums written (net of $53 reduction in the amount ceded to Employers Mutual under the excess of loss agreement) and $223 of negative commission expense that were recorded in connection with the change in Employers Mutual’s participation in MRB.  Excluding these adjustments, the expense ratio and combined trade ratio for “reinsurance” would have been 23.8 percent and 82.8 percent, respectively, and for “total insurance operations” would have been unchanged at 32.3 percent and 97.5 percent, respectively. The 2012 expense ratio and combined trade ratio for “reinsurance” and “total insurance operations” reflect $3,065 of negative premiums written (net of $341 reduction in the amount ceded to Employers Mutual under the excess of loss agreement) and $1,362 of negative commission expense that were recorded in connection with the cancellation of a large pro rata account written by MRB.  Excluding these adjustments, the expense ratio and combined trade ratio for “reinsurance” would have been 22.4 percent and 90.8 percent, respectively, and for “total insurance operations” would have been 32.4 percent and 99.1 percent, respectively.  The 2011 expense ratio and combined trade ratio for “reinsurance” and “total insurance operations” reflect $921 of additional premiums written (net of $102 ceded to Employers Mutual under the excess of loss agreement) and $399 of commission expense that were recorded in connection with the change in Employers Mutual’s participation in MRB.  Excluding these adjustments, the expense ratio and combined trade ratio for “reinsurance” would have been 21.3 percent and 117.9 percent, respectively, and for “total insurance operations” would have been 32.7 percent and 115.5 percent, respectively.

(2)       As reported by A.M. Best.  The ratio for 2013 is an estimate; the actual combined trade ratio is not currently available.

Claims Management

The pool participants believe that effective claims management is critical to their success.  To this end, the pool participants have adopted a customer-focused claims management process that is cost efficient, and delivers a high level of claims service that produces superior results.  The claims management process is focused on handling claims from their inception, accelerating communication to insureds and claimants, and compressing the cycle time of claims to control both loss costs and claims-handling costs.  The pool participants believe their process provides quality service and results in the appropriate handling of claims, allowing them to cost-effectively pay valid claims and contest fraudulent claims.

The claims management operation includes adjusters, appraisers, special investigators, attorneys and claims administrative personnel.  The pool participants conduct their claims management operations out of 16 branch offices and five service offices located throughout the United States.  The home office claims group provides advice and counsel for branch claims staff in investigating, reserving and settling claims.  The home office claims staff also evaluates branch claims operations and makes recommendations for improvements in performance.  Additional home office services provided include: complex claim handling, physical damage and property review, medical case management, medical bill review, legal coverage analysis, litigation management and subrogation.  Management believes these home office services assist the branch claims personnel in producing greater efficiencies than can be achieved at the local level.

Each branch office is responsible for evaluating and settling claims within the authority provided by home office claims.  Authority levels within the branch offices are granted based upon an adjuster’s experience and expertise.  A branch office must request input from home office claims once a case exceeds its authority level.  A claims committee exists within home office and is chaired by the Senior Vice President of Claims.  This committee meets on a weekly basis to assist the branches in evaluating and settling claims beyond their authority level.

The pool participants manage litigated claims arising from value disputes and questionable liability, and will defend appropriate denials of coverage.  The pool participants retain outside defense counsel to defend such matters; however, internal claims professionals manage the litigation process.  The pool participants have implemented an internally developed litigation management system that allows the claims staff to evaluate the quality and cost effectiveness of outside legal services.  Cases are constantly reviewed to adjust the litigation plan as necessary, and all cases going to trial are carefully reviewed to assess the value of a trial verses a settlement.

Loss and Settlement Expense Reserves

Liabilities for losses and settlement expenses are best current estimates at a given point in time of what an insurer expects to pay to claimants and the cost of claims settlement, based on facts and circumstances known.  It can be expected that as the claims settlement process progresses the insurer’s ultimate liability for losses and settlement expenses may either exceed or be less than such estimates.  The Company’s estimates of the liabilities for losses and settlement expenses are based on estimates of future trends and claims severity, judicial theories of liability, historic loss emergence and other factors.  Because of the inherent uncertainties involved in the establishment of reserves for less mature accident years, management’s reserving methodology for the current and more recent accident years utilizes prudently conservative assumptions.  During the loss settlement period, which may cover many years in some cases, the inherent uncertainty associated with these accident years declines as the Company learns additional facts regarding individual claims and potential future claims, and consequently it often becomes necessary to refine and adjust its estimates of liability.  The Company reflects any adjustments to its liabilities for losses and settlement expenses in its operating results in the period in which the changes in estimates are made.

The Company maintains reserves for losses and settlement expenses with respect to both reported and unreported claims.  The amount of reserves for reported claims, known as “case reserves”, is primarily based upon a case-by-case evaluation of the specific type of claim, knowledge of the circumstances surrounding each claim and the policy provisions relating to the type of loss.  Case reserves on assumed reinsurance business are the amounts reported by the ceding companies.

The amount of reserves for unreported claims, known as “Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) loss reserves”, is determined on the basis of statistical information for each line of insurance with respect to expected loss emergence arising from occurrences that have not yet been reported.  Established reserves (for both reported and unreported claims) are closely monitored and are frequently examined using a variety of formulas and statistical techniques for analyzing loss development, as well as other economic and social factors.

Settlement expense reserves are intended to cover the ultimate cost of investigating claims and defending lawsuits arising from claims.  These reserves are established each quarter based on previous periods’ experience to project the ultimate cost of settlement expenses.  To the extent that adjustments are required to be made in the amount of loss reserves each year, settlement expense reserves are correspondingly revised, if necessary.

The Company does not discount reserves.  Inflation is implicitly provided for in the reserving function through analysis of cost trends, reviews of historical reserving results and projections of future economic conditions.  Estimates of individual case loss reserves are monitored and reviewed on a regular basis by claim staff members.  Special attention is given to claims of $100 or greater, and long-term and lifetime medical claims.  Based on currently available information, individual case loss reserves are revised to reflect changes in estimated ultimate settlement values.

Despite the inherent uncertainties of estimating loss and settlement expense reserves, management believes that the Company’s reserves are being calculated in accordance with sound actuarial practices and, based upon current information, that the reserve for losses and settlement expenses at December 31, 2013 represents management’s best estimate of the Company’s overall liability.

Reserving Methodology

Property and Casualty Insurance

Management does not use accident year loss picks to establish the property and casualty insurance segment's carried reserves.  Case loss and IBNR loss reserves, as well as settlement expense reserves, are established independently of each other and added together to get the total loss and settlement expense reserve.  The property and casualty insurance segment's reserving methodology also includes bulk case loss reserves, which supplement the aggregate case loss reserves and are used by management to establish its best estimate of the liability for reported claims.  By establishing bulk (i.e. IBNR loss, bulk case loss, and settlement expense) reserves independently of the case loss reserves, management believes that it is able to appropriately estimate the property and casualty insurance segment's total loss and settlement expense exposures.

Case loss reserves are the individual reserves established based on the specific facts for each reported claim.  Individual case loss reserves are based on the probable, or most likely, outcome for each claim, with probable outcome defined as what is most likely to be awarded if the case were to be decided by a civil court in the applicable venue or, in the case of a workers’ compensation case, by that state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission.  Bulk case loss reserves are actuarially derived and are allocated to the various accident years on the basis of an annual study of indicated reserve adequacy by accident year maturity.

IBNR loss reserves are established by applying actuarially derived “IBNR factors” to the previous twelve months earned premiums.  The IBNR factors are determined for each line of business on an annual basis through an actuarial study of historic IBNR emergence relative to "on-level" premium.  The IBNR factors are adjusted on a quarterly basis for rate level changes, and may be further adjusted if the actuarial department recommends that a change in the overall reserve level is warranted.  The formula IBNR loss reserve established through this process is for all accident years combined, and the total is allocated to the various accident years by applying an allocation factor to the total formula IBNR amount.  The accident year allocation factors are determined by line-of-business, and are based on an annual study of indicated reserve adequacy by accident year maturity, as well as historic IBNR loss emergence. 

Other categories of the IBNR loss reserve, which are used to cover exposures associated with asbestos and environmental claims, storms, and catastrophic events, are established independently.  IBNR loss reserves associated with storms and catastrophic events are event-specific.  When a storm or catastrophic event occurs, the location of the event is overlaid over a map of the Company’s exposures.  Using this information and other factors (such as wind speed and the size of any hail), the affected branch office(s) are contacted and requested to develop a loss estimate based on projections of loss frequency and severity in their location.  To develop this loss estimate, large accounts located in the affected areas are contacted.  Based on this information and discussions with local agents, both the number and severity of estimated losses are projected by location.  Management then compiles and analyzes this information and calculates a total loss estimate.  The total loss estimate is generally established within two weeks of an event and is adjusted, if necessary, as the actual claims are inspected.  At each reporting date, the total amount of reported losses associated with each storm/catastrophic event is compared to the most recent total loss estimate for that event, and the difference is recorded as the storm/catastrophe IBNR loss reserve.

Settlement expense reserves (other than for asbestos and environmental claims) are established by applying actuarially derived “settlement expense factors” to the loss reserves.  The settlement expense factors are determined for each line of business on a quarterly basis through an actuarial study of historical ratios of paid expenses to paid losses.  The settlement expense reserve established through this process is for all accident years combined, and the total is allocated to the various accident years proportional to the loss reserves.  Asbestos and environmental settlement expense reserves are established by management to achieve indicated survival ratios (i.e., number of years until reserve exhaustion based on the most recent three-year average of annual loss and settlement expense payments) believed to provide multiple years of claims and/or settlement expense payments before reserve exhaustion.  These reserves are monitored quarterly, with action taken when the indicated survival ratio falls outside a prudent range approved by management, or quantifiable new information indicates a change in reserve level is needed.

Reinsurance

Reserves for the HORAD book of business are reviewed quarterly. The latest five contract years are typically reviewed during each of the first three quarters of any given year; while all contract years 1988 and subsequent are reviewed during the fourth quarter (detailed contract year information is not available prior to 1988). Accident years 1981-1987 are reviewed separately during the fourth quarter.

Premium, loss and settlement expense data is generally reported by ceding companies on a contract year basis; however, some loss and settlement expense data is reported on an accident year basis. Some ceding companies also report IBNR loss reserves. The reinsurance segment books these IBNR loss reserve amounts, and then deducts them from the indicated IBNR loss reserves calculated by Employers Mutual’s actuaries. The reinsurance segment may also book “additional case reserves” for ceding companies whose reported case reserves related to certain claims are believed to be less than adequate.

Using the reported data, excluding the reported IBNR loss reserves, Employers Mutual's actuaries develop an indicated ultimate loss, and corresponding IBNR loss reserve, by type of contract (property/casualty/excess/pro rata/multi-line) and by contract year. The actuaries employ the standard paid and incurred chain ladder (triangle) development methods and the Bornheutter-Furgeson "expected loss ratio" method to produce the indicated ultimate loss, and corresponding IBNR loss reserves. In addition, a loss ratio approach and judgment are applied to a few minor contract types which represent an insignificant portion of the total book of business.

For the major contract types, the reinsurance segment uses its own paid and incurred development data aggregated on a contract year basis. The reason for aggregating by contract year, rather than accident year, is to ensure an accurate aggregation, as ceding companies have not always provided sufficient detail to determine the proper accident year assignment. In addition, the reinsurance segment uses data from the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA) to assist in estimating reserve development for casualty excess contracts.

The "expected loss ratios" used in the Bornheutter-Ferguson method for the current contract year are calculated by contract type during the first quarter. Once established, the "expected loss ratios" for the various contract years are generally not revised. The "expected loss ratios" are calculated by dividing the "projected ultimate losses" for contract years having at least five years of maturity by the contract-year earned premium brought to the current rate-level. The current rate-level loss ratios are then trended to the current contract period. In addition, when large accounts are first written, there is generally some underwriting or reserving data available from which an "expected loss ratio" may be determined.

After establishing the ultimate loss, and corresponding IBNR loss reserve, by treaty type and contract year, an allocation must be made in order to book the IBNR loss reserve by accident year and line-of-business. This is accomplished by a historical study of the ultimate accident year distribution of reported losses and reported loss types (for those treaty types which may cover multiple lines of business). For the latest contract years, consideration is also given to the distribution of the contract effective dates and the expected earnings pattern of the contract types (occurrence vs. risks attaching contracts).

The reinsurance segment also books earned but not reported (EBNR) premiums on pro rata contracts, and accrued reinstatement premiums on catastrophe excess contracts. EBNR premium is estimated by applying an earnings pattern to the expected ultimate contract year premium associated with the various pro rata contract types, and netting the reported-to-date from the estimated earned-to-date. It is important to note that whenever EBNR premium is booked, there is an associated IBNR loss reserve established as well. Accrued reinstatement premiums are estimated by applying a historically selected ratio of "ultimate reinstatement premium to incurred losses" to the "expected ultimate" incurred catastrophe loss by contract year. Netting the reported reinstatement premiums-to-date from this ultimate produces the booked accrual.

Reported loss and IBNR loss reserves associated with the Mutual Reinsurance Bureau (MRB) book of business are established by that entity’s management, and booked by the reinsurance segment on a monthly basis. MRB claims files are audited annually by the member companies’ reinsurance claim departments, and the member company actuarial departments perform an annual reserve adequacy review. The reinsurance segment books a relatively small IBNR loss reserve and EBNR premium amount to account for a one quarter lag in reporting.

Reserve Evaluation and Determination of Management’s Best Estimate of Overall Liability

Property and casualty insurance

Prior to the end of each quarter, Employers Mutual's actuaries utilize standard loss development methodologies to evaluate the adequacy of the previous quarter’s carried reserves.   The actuaries employ the use of the standard paid and incurred chain ladder (triangle) development methods to perform this evaluation.  The actuaries organize the paid and incurred losses on a “rolling” accident year basis, meaning that at any particular quarter-end, an accident year is defined by the most recent four quarters and will, therefore, cross calendar years except at year-end.  Using five different averaging periods to compute loss development factors, five separate point estimates of indicated reserves are developed for each paid and incurred triangle.  The high and low point estimates derived from this process establish the actuarial range of reasonable reserves.  An additional benchmark, referred to as the actuarial central estimate, is determined by calculating a separate point estimate using “selected paid” and “selected incurred” estimates.  This actuarial central estimate is deemed to be an action point in the evaluation of the property and casualty insurance segment's carried reserves.  If the prior quarter’s total carried reserves fall below this threshold, the actuarial department will recommend that an adjustment be made to the current quarter’s carried reserves.

A separate evaluation of the prior quarter’s case and bulk case loss reserves is also performed each quarter. The evaluation methodology utilized is similar to the review performed on total carried reserves, except that the accident year triangles include development on reported claims only.

The determination of management’s best estimate of the property and casualty insurance segment's overall liability at each quarterly reporting date begins with the actuarial department performing a comparison of the prior quarter’s total carried reserves to the actuarial range of reasonable reserves and actuarial central estimate (as described in the preceding paragraph) for such prior quarter.  Generally, if the prior quarter’s carried reserves are within a few percentage points of, but not below, the actuarial central estimate, and if the separate review of the case and bulk case loss reserves indicates that those reserves are within a few percentage points of the actuarial central estimate for the case reserves, the actuarial department will report that it is comfortable with the current quarter’s carried reserves, and the current quarter’s total carried reserves are deemed to be management’s best estimate of the property and casualty insurance segment's overall liability.  If the prior quarter’s total carried reserves fall outside of that quarter’s actuarial range of reasonable reserves, or if the review of the previous quarter’s total carried reserve and/or case and bulk case loss reserves indicates that those reserves are not within a few percentage points of their respective actuarial central estimate, the actuarial department will recommend that an adjustment be made to the current quarter’s total carried reserves.  Management reviews all recommendations submitted by the actuarial department and considers such recommendations in the determination of its best estimate of overall liability.

Reinsurance

The IBNR loss reserves for the HORAD book of business are determined and booked each quarter along with the ceding companies’ reported losses/reserves. The methodologies used to establish the IBNR loss reserves produce a range of indicated reserves for each contract type and contract year. Employers Mutual’s actuaries examine the reasonableness of each range, and then select a point estimate within those ranges. For the more recent contract years, the selected IBNR loss reserve estimate tends to be higher in the range, typically in the fourth quartile, due to the considerable uncertainty associated with these immature contract years. The IBNR loss reserve selected for the more mature contract years tends to be at, or slightly above, the midpoint of the range of reasonable reserves. In addition to the actuarially determined reserves, an additional IBNR loss reserve is established when large catastrophic events occur, based on an examination of impacted contracts/exposures and reported industry-wide loss estimates. In aggregate, the IBNR loss reserve selected using these methods and procedures, combined with reserves reported by the ceding companies, becomes management’s best estimate of the reinsurance segment’s overall liability.

The reported loss and IBNR loss reserves associated with the MRB book of business are established by that entity’s management, and the reinsurance segment books its share of those amounts on a quarterly basis. The Company also books a relatively small IBNR loss reserve and EBNR premium accrual to the current accident year, to account for a one quarter lag in reporting.

Reserve Development

Property and casualty insurance

There is an inherent amount of uncertainty involved in the establishment of insurance liabilities.  This uncertainty is greatest in the current and more recent accident years because a smaller percentage of the expected ultimate claims have been reported, adjusted and settled compared to more mature accident years.  For this reason, carried reserves for these accident years reflect prudently conservative assumptions.  As the carried reserves for these accident years run off, the overall expectation is that, more often than not, favorable development will occur.  However, there is also the possibility that the ultimate settlement of liabilities associated with these accident years will show adverse development, and such adverse development could be substantial.

As previously noted, the property and casualty insurance segment's bulk reserves (formula IBNR loss reserve, bulk case loss reserve and settlement expense reserve) are initially established for all accident years combined, and the total is then allocated to the various accident years. During this allocation process, a portion of the total bulk reserves may be reallocated from the current accident year to prior accident years, or from prior accident years to the current accident year, to achieve the actuarial department's desired reserve level by accident year. When reserves are moved to, or from, prior accident years, the change is reported as development on prior years' reserves. However, this type of development is "mechanical" in nature, and does not have an impact on earnings. This is due to the fact that such development is simply a mathematical by-product of the mechanical process used to reallocate bulk reserves to the various accident years.  Earnings are only impacted by changes in the total amount of carried reserves.

Reinsurance

There are inherent uncertainties involved in establishing reserves for assumed reinsurance business. Such uncertainties include the fact that a reinsurance company generally has less knowledge than the ceding companies about the underlying book of business and the ceding companies' reserving practices. For this reason, the carried reserves for the reinsurance segment are generally in the upper quartile of the range of actuarial reserve indications. As the carried reserves run off, the overall expectation is that, more often than not, favorable development will occur.  However, there is also the possibility that the ultimate settlement of liabilities will show adverse development, and such adverse development could be substantial.

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of beginning and ending reserves for losses and settlement expenses of the property and casualty insurance subsidiaries and the reinsurance subsidiary.  Amounts presented are on a net basis, with a reconciliation of beginning and ending reserves to the gross amounts presented in the consolidated financial statements.

The following table presents the reported amounts of favorable development experienced on prior years’ reserves and the portion of the reported development amounts that resulted solely from changes in the allocation of bulk reserves between the current and prior accident years in the property and casualty insurance segment (no impact on earnings).  The result is an approximation of the implied amount of favorable development that had an impact on earnings.

Following is a detailed analysis of the development the Company has experienced on its prior accident years’ reserves during the past three years.  Care should be exercised when attempting to analyze the financial impact of the reported development amounts because, as previously noted, the overall expectation is that, more often than not, favorable development will occur as the prior accident years’ reserves run off and, development on prior years’ reserves resulting solely from changes in the allocation of bulk reserves between the current and prior accident years in the property and casualty insurance segment does not have an impact on earnings.

Year ended December 31, 2013

Property and casualty insurance segment

For the property and casualty insurance segment, the December 31, 2013 estimate of loss and settlement expense reserves for accident years 2012 and prior decreased $7,281 from the estimate at December 31, 2012 .  This decrease represented 1.8 percent of the December 31, 2012 carried reserves.  No changes were made in the key actuarial assumptions utilized to estimate loss and settlement expense reserves during 2013; however, the accident year allocation factors applied to IBNR loss, bulk case loss, and a portion of settlement expense reserves were revised at December 31, 2013 as part of the annual review.  This change resulted in the movement of $6,526 of reserves from prior accident years to the current accident year, and hence, was reported as favorable development on prior years' reserves.

Reserves on previously reported claims developed favorably in 2013 by approximately $106.  This includes $2,699 of favorable development attributable to revised accident year allocation factors for bulk case loss reserves, which offset $1,006 of adverse development experienced on prior years’ reported claims (exclusive of the bulk case loss reserve) and $1,587 of adverse development from increases in the bulk case loss reserve.  Of the $106 of favorable development, accident years 2009, 2010 and 2012 experienced adverse development of $3,510, while all remaining accident years experienced aggregate favorable development of $3,616.  While all lines of business continued to experience very favorable development on claims which “closed” during 2013, adverse development (exclusive of bulk case loss reserve changes or accident year reallocation impacts) on claims remaining “open” outpaced the favorable development experienced on "closed" claims in four lines of business: personal auto liability ($56), commercial auto liability ($6,151), workers compensation ($931) and other liability ($1,470). Favorable development on the combined "case plus bulk case loss reserves" occurred in five of the eight major lines of business.  The lines experiencing adverse development include Personal Auto Liability ($114), Commercial Auto Liability ($4,564), and Other Liability ($2,467). The following table displays the development experienced on previously reported claims, as well as the development amounts generated by the change in accident year allocation factors, by line of business:

Personal auto liability experienced adverse development stemming solely from a reserve increase on one 2003 Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association unlimited personal injury protection claim. If not for this increase, personal auto liability would have experienced favorable development similar to prior reporting periods. Commercial auto liability experienced adverse development on reported claims stemming from an approximately 50 percent increase in the number and dollar amount of claims having development in excess of $100. Although the number of claims involved represents slightly over one percent of the commercial auto liability claims having development of any amount, the dollar impact was significant. Other liability also experienced adverse development on reported claims, however, approximately 90 percent of that development can be attributed to an unexpected judgment on a single liability claim. Compared to prior reporting periods, the decline in favorable development on the commercial property and homeowners lines of business can be attributed to the property and casualty insurance segment experiencing far fewer storm related claims during 2012, as opposed to the record numbers incurred during 2011. Approximately 35 percent fewer prior year storm-related property claims remained open during 2013 versus 2012, and the decrease in associated commercial property and homeowners' favorable development between the two calendar years totaled $2,654.

Overall, IBNR loss reserves developed adversely by $5,916.  This adverse development was primarily attributed to higher than expected emergence ($6,751), increased exposures ($1,778), and the impact of changes in line-of-business distribution ($996). The adverse development was partially offset by favorable development stemming from changes in the IBNR accident year allocation factors ($2,729), and from IBNR loss reserve decreases taken as a result of scheduled reserve reviews ($880).  The commercial property line of business was responsible for approximately 85 percent ($4,998) of the adverse development, the vast majority of which is attributable to higher than expected IBNR emergence. Homeowners and auto physical damage also experienced adverse IBNR development ($1,148 and $871, respectively) attributable to higher than expected IBNR emergence. Adverse IBNR emergence on these lines was not totally unexpected as the property and casualty insurance segment carries slightly lower levels of IBNR loss reserves on the property lines of business due to the consistent strength of reserves carried on reported claims.  Other Liability experienced a small amount of adverse IBNR development ($299). The remaining casualty lines developed favorably. Surety bonds experienced adverse IBNR development of $1,887 due mainly to an increase in carried formula IBNR reserves. The following table displays the development experienced on IBNR loss reserves from each of these factors, by line of business:

The commercial property line of business includes liability claims from business owners policies. Part of the adverse IBNR development can be attributed to four large business owners liability claims ($1,000 policy limit for the pool) which emerged during 2013. For comparison, IBNR emergence for calendar year 2012 consisted mostly of property claims, of which the largest was significantly below $1,000. As noted above, since the property and casualty insurance segment normally experiences significant favorable development on reported claims, a lower level of IBNR loss reserves is carried for the property lines (commercial property, homeowners and auto physical damage). The adverse IBNR emergence observed on the other liability line of business can be attributed to a single 2010 construction defect claim which generated $2,700 of adverse development.

Total settlement expense reserves developed favorably in 2013 by $7,108.  Approximately 65 percent of the favorable development is attributed to defense and cost containment expenses.  The reserves associated with these expenses were established in bulk, and were allocated to the various accident years in proportion to the accident year distribution of the underlying loss reserves.  During 2013, the underlying loss reserves experienced favorable development, which generated favorable development in the settlement expense reserves.  However, the portion of this reserve associated with asbestos claims experienced adverse development of $1,080 due to strengthening required to bolster the indicated survival ratio (ratio of loss and settlement expense reserves to the three-year average of loss and settlement expense payments), which had declined due to increased litigation costs.  Changes in the IBNR loss reserve and bulk case loss reserve accident year allocation factors accounted for $1,100 of the favorable development in the defense and cost containment expense reserves.  The remaining 35 percent of favorable development was attributed to adjusting and other expenses (i.e., internal claims department, independent adjuster and miscellaneous settlement expenses). Differences in the allocation factors used to distribute the reserves for these expenses at year-end 2013 compared to year-end 2012 generated $781 of adverse development.  The majority of the remaining favorable development resulted from settlement expense payments that were lower than anticipated in the payment patterns used in the December 31, 2012 accident year allocations.

Prior accident years’ reserves for non-voluntary assumed business developed favorably by $152, attributed primarily to assigned risk pools.

The above results reflect prior accident year reserve development on a direct and assumed basis.  During 2013, ceded losses and settlement expenses for prior accident years increased $5,291.  This increase in reinsurance recoveries is reported as favorable development.

Reinsurance segment

For the reinsurance segment, the December 31, 2013 estimate of loss and settlement expense reserves for accident years 2012 and prior decreased $5,504 from the estimate at December 31, 2012 .  This decrease represented 3.2 percent of the December 31, 2012 carried reserves.  The HORAD portion of the book experienced favorable development of approximately $5,578, while MRB experienced adverse development of approximately $74.  MRB accident years 2012 and 2010 experienced adverse development of $997 and $110, respectively.  The adverse development was mostly offset by favorable development on accident years 2006 ($431) and 2008 ($259), plus favorable development on most of the remaining prior accident years.  For the HORAD book of business, accident years 2009-2012 accounted for approximately 85 percent of the favorable development, with less significant amounts of favorable development occurring in most of the remaining prior accident years.  The decline in favorable development in the HORAD book of business in 2013 compared to 2012 was generally expected by management as the expected loss ratios used in the development methodologies applied to 2012 contract year were somewhat lower than previous contact years due to an extensive actuarial study performed during 2012. Much of the favorable development experienced in 2013 is attributed to reported losses that were below December 2012 implicit projections for policy year 2012 in the property per risk, catastrophe excess, multi-line excess and property pro rata treaty types.

No changes were made in the key actuarial assumptions utilized to estimate loss and settlement expense reserves during 2013, including the "expected loss ratios" utilized for prior contract years. The "expected loss ratios" utilized for the 2013 contract year were based on an extensive actuarial analysis of trended historic ultimate loss ratios based on current-level earned premiums. Where applicable, new contract loss information or loss histories were also incorporated into the selection process. Compared to the 2012 contract year selections, the property excess "expected loss ratios" increased slightly, as did the ocean marine pro rata "expected loss ratios". The casualty excess "expected loss ratio" decreased very slightly. The addition of a large account with favorable loss history to the small casualty pro rata portfolio that previously existed significantly lowered the "expected loss ratio" applied to that contract type.

Year ended December 31, 2012

Property and casualty insurance segment

For the property and casualty insurance segment, the December 31, 2012 estimate of loss and settlement expense reserves for accident years 2011 and prior decreased $13,057 from the estimate at December 31, 2011 .  This decrease represented 3.1 percent of the December 31, 2011 carried reserves.  No changes were made in the key actuarial assumptions utilized to estimate loss and settlement expense reserves during 2012; however, the accident year allocation factors applied to IBNR loss, bulk case loss and a portion of defense and cost containment expense reserves were revised at December 31, 2012 as part of the annual review.  This change resulted in the movement of $4,551 of reserves from the current accident year to prior accident years, and hence, was reported as adverse development on prior years' reserves.

Reserves on previously reported claims developed favorably in 2012 by approximately $17,633.  This included $942 of adverse development attributable to revised accident year allocation factors for bulk case loss reserves.  Favorable development on case and bulk case loss reserves occurred in all major lines of business except bonds.  For all lines combined, the latest five prior accident years were responsible for over 88 percent of the total favorable development.  In aggregate, the favorable development on previously reported claims was attributable to decreased severity on claims that closed during 2012.  The following table displays the development experienced on previously reported claims, as well as the development amounts generated by the change in accident year allocation factors, by line of business: