Item 1A. Risk Factors

Risks Related to Our Company

Our income and profitability may decline if we are unable to maintain our relationships with significant clients, distributors and other parties important to the success of our business.

Our relationships and contractual arrangements with significant clients, distributors and other parties with whom we do business are important to the success of our segments. Many of these arrangements are exclusive. For example, in Assurant Solutions, we have exclusive relationships with retailers and financial and other institutions through which we distribute our products, including an exclusive distribution relationship with SCI relating to the distribution of our preneed insurance policies. In Assurant Specialty Property, we have exclusive relationships with mortgage lenders and manufactured housing. In Assurant Health, we have exclusive distribution relationships for our individual health insurance products with a major mutual insurance company as well as a relationship with a well-known association through which we provide many of our individual health insurance products. We also maintain contractual relationships with several separate networks of health and dental care providers, each referred to as a PPO, through which we obtain discounts. Typically, these relationships and contractual arrangements have terms ranging from one to five years.

Although we believe we have generally been successful in maintaining our client, distribution and associated relationships, if these parties decline to renew or seek to terminate these arrangements or seek to renew these contracts on terms less favorable to us, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. For example, a loss of one or more of the discount arrangements with PPOs could lead to higher medical or dental costs and/or a loss of members to other medical or dental plans. In addition, we are subject to the risk that these parties may face financial difficulties, reputational issues or problems with respect to their own products and services, which may lead to decreased sales of our products and services. Moreover, if one or more of our clients or distributors consolidate or align themselves with other companies, we may lose business or suffer decreased revenues.

Sales of our products and services may be reduced if we are unable to attract and retain sales representatives or develop and maintain distribution sources.

We distribute our insurance products and services through a variety of distribution channels, including independent employee benefits specialists, brokers, managing general agents, life agents, financial institutions, mortgage lenders and servicers, retailers, funeral homes, association groups and other third-party marketing organizations.

Our relationships with these various distributors are significant both for our revenues and profits. We generally do not distribute our insurance products and services through captive or affiliated agents. In Assurant Health, we depend in large part on the services of independent agents and brokers and on associations in the marketing of our products. In Assurant Employee Benefits, independent agents and brokers who act as advisors to our customers market and distribute our products. Strong competition exists among insurers to form relationships with agents and brokers of demonstrated ability. We compete with other insurers for relationships with agents, brokers, and other intermediaries primarily on the basis of our financial position, support services, product features, and more generally through our ability to meet the needs of their clients, our customers. Independent agents and brokers are typically not exclusively dedicated to us, but instead usually also market the products of our competitors and therefore we face continued competition from our competitors’ products. Moreover, our ability to market our products and services depends on our ability to tailor our channels of distribution to comply with changes in the regulatory environment in which we and such agents and brokers operate. For example, in the past, both the marketing of health insurance through association groups and broker compensation arrangements have come under increased scrutiny. An interruption in, or changes to, our relationships with various third-party distributors or our inability to respond to regulatory changes that threaten to disrupt our distribution processes could impair our ability to compete and market our insurance products and services that could cause a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

14

Table of Contents

We have our own sales representatives whose distribution process varies by segment. We depend in large part on our sales representatives to develop and maintain client relationships. Our inability to attract and retain effective sales representatives could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

General economic, financial market and political conditions may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

General economic, financial market and political conditions may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. These conditions include economic cycles such as insurance industry cycles, levels of employment, levels of consumer lending, levels of consumer spending, levels of inflation and movements of the financial markets.

Fluctuations in interest rates, mortgage rates, monetary policy, demographics, and legislative and competitive factors also influence our performance. Our expansion into foreign countries may result in similar risks, including currency fluctuations, unstable political climates, and governmental and competitive factors. During periods of economic downturn:

In addition, general inflationary pressures may affect the costs of medical and dental care, as well as repair and replacement costs on our real and personal property lines, increasing the costs of paying claims. Inflationary pressures may also affect the costs associated with our preneed insurance policies, particularly those that are guaranteed to grow with the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”).

Our actual claims losses may exceed our reserves for claims, which may require us to establish additional reserves that may materially reduce our earnings, profitability and capital.

We maintain reserves to cover our estimated ultimate exposure for claims and claim adjustment expenses with respect to reported claims and incurred but not reported claims (“IBNR”) as of the end of each accounting period. Reserves, whether calculated, in the U.S., under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”), Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”) or accounting principles required in foreign jurisdictions, do not represent an exact calculation of exposure, but instead represent our best estimates, generally involving actuarial projections at a given time, of what we expect the ultimate settlement and administration of a claim or group of claims will cost based on our assessment of facts and circumstances then known. The adequacy of reserves will be impacted by future trends in claims severity, frequency, judicial theories of liability and other factors. These variables are affected by both external and internal events, such as changes in the economic cycle, changes in the social perception of the value of work, emerging medical perceptions regarding physiological or psychological causes of disability, emerging health issues and new methods of treatment or accommodation, inflation, judicial trends, legislative changes and claims handling procedures. Many of these items are not

15

Table of Contents

directly quantifiable, particularly on a prospective basis. Reserve estimates are refined as experience develops. Adjustments to reserves, both positive and negative, are reflected in the statement of operations of the period in which such estimates are updated. Because establishment of reserves is an inherently uncertain process involving estimates of future losses, there can be no certainty that ultimate losses will not exceed existing claims reserves. In addition, future loss development could require reserves to be increased, which could have a material adverse effect on our earnings in the periods in which such increases are made.

We may be unable to accurately predict benefits, claims and other costs or to manage such costs through our loss mitigation methods, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our profitability could vary depending on our ability to predict benefits, claims and other costs, including medical and dental costs, and predictions regarding the frequency and magnitude of claims on our disability and property coverages. It also depends on our ability to manage future benefit and other costs through product design, underwriting criteria, utilization review or claims management and, in health and dental insurance, negotiation of favorable provider contracts. Utilization review is a process designed to control and limit medical expenses, which includes, among other things, requiring certification for admission to a health care facility and cost-effective ways of handling patients with catastrophic illnesses. Claims management entails the use of a variety of means to mitigate the extent of losses incurred by insureds and the corresponding benefit cost, which includes efforts to improve the quality of medical care provided to insureds and to assist them with vocational services. Our ability to predict and manage costs and claims, as well as our business, results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected by changes in health and dental care practices, inflation, new technologies, the cost of prescription drugs, clusters of high cost cases, changes in the regulatory environment, economic factors, the occurrence of catastrophes and increased construction and repair related costs.

The judicial and regulatory environments, changes in the composition of the kinds of work available in the economy, market conditions and numerous other factors may also materially adversely affect our ability to manage claim costs. The aging of the population, other demographic characteristics and advances in medical technology continue to contribute to rising health care costs. As a result of one or more of these factors or other factors, claims could substantially exceed our expectations, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

As industry practices and legal, judicial, social and other environmental conditions change, unexpected and unintended issues relating to claims and coverage may emerge. These issues could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition by either extending coverage beyond our underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims or both. We may be limited in our ability to respond to such changes, by insurance regulations, existing contract terms, contract filing requirements, market conditions or other factors.

Our investment portfolio is subject to several risks that may diminish the value of our invested assets and affect our profitability.

Our investment portfolio may suffer reduced returns or losses that could reduce our profitability.

Investment returns are an important part of our overall profitability and significant fluctuations in the fixed maturity market could impair our profitability, financial condition and/or cash flows. Our investments are subject to market-wide risks and fluctuations, as well as to risks inherent in particular securities. In particular, volatility of claims may force us to liquidate securities prior to maturity, which may cause us to incur capital losses. If we do not structure our investment portfolio so that it is appropriately matched with our insurance liabilities, we may be forced to liquidate investments prior to maturity at a significant loss to cover such liabilities. Our net investment income and net realized (losses)/gains on investments collectively accounted for approximately 9% of our total revenues during the year ending December 31, 2007 and 11% of our total revenues during the year ending December 31, 2006. See “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and

16

Table of Contents

Results of Operations—Investments” and “Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for additional information on our investment portfolio and related risks.

The U.S. secondary mortgage market has experienced unprecedented disruptions resulting from credit quality deterioration in a significant portion of loans originated, primarily to non-prime and sub-prime borrowers. This has led to reduced investor demand for mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities and increased investor yield requirements for those loans and securities. Recently, the industry problem with subprime mortgages has created a volatile secondary market for other high-risk products, especially alternative documentation loans (typically offered to qualified borrowers who have relatively high credit scores but are not required to provide full documentation to support personal income and assets owned). These conditions may continue or worsen in the future. Although at December 31, 2007, only a small portion of our mortgage-backed securities were secured by sub-prime mortgage collateral, if the market disruption continues and/or expands beyond the U.S. sub-prime residential mortgage markets, these events could ultimately impact our fixed maturity and commercial mortgage loan portfolio and may have a material adverse effect on the value of our investment portfolio, our results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

The performance of our investment portfolio is subject to fluctuations due to changes in interest rates and market conditions.

Changes in interest rates can negatively affect the performance of some of our investments. Interest rate volatility can increase or reduce unrealized gains or unrealized losses in our portfolios. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors, including governmental monetary policies, domestic and international economic and political conditions and other factors beyond our control. Fixed maturity and short-term investments represented 77% of the fair value of our total investments as of December 31, 2007 and 76% of the fair value of our total investments as of December 31, 2006. See “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Investments” and “Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” for additional information on the effect of fluctuations in interest rates.

The fair market value of the fixed maturity securities in our portfolio and the investment income from these securities fluctuate depending on general economic and market conditions. Because all of our fixed maturity securities are classified as available for sale, changes in the market value of these securities are reflected in our balance sheet. The fair market value generally increases or decreases in an inverse relationship with fluctuations in interest rates, while net investment income realized by us from future investments in fixed maturity securities will generally increase or decrease with interest rates. In addition, actual net investment income and/or cash flows from investments that carry prepayment risk, such as mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities, may differ from those anticipated at the time of investment as a result of interest rate fluctuations. In periods of declining interest rates, mortgage prepayments generally increase and mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage obligations and bonds in our investment portfolio are more likely to be prepaid or redeemed as borrowers seek to borrow at lower interest rates, and we may be required to reinvest those funds in lower interest-bearing investments. As of December 31, 2007, mortgage-backed securities represented $1,020,614, or 7%, of the fair value of our total investments.

We employ asset/liability management strategies to reduce the adverse effects of interest rate volatility and to ensure that cash flows are available to pay claims as they become due. Our asset/liability management strategies include asset/liability duration management, structuring our bond and commercial mortgage loan portfolios to limit the effects of prepayments and consistent monitoring of, and appropriate changes to, the pricing of our products.

Asset/liability management strategies may fail to eliminate or reduce the adverse effects of interest rate volatility, and no assurances can be given that significant fluctuations in the level of interest rates will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

17

Table of Contents

In addition, our preneed insurance policies are generally whole life insurance policies with increasing death benefits. In extended periods of declining interest rates or high inflation, there may be compression in the spread between the death benefit growth rates on these policies and the investment earnings that we can earn, resulting in a negative spread. As a result, declining interest rates or high inflation rates may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and our overall financial condition. See “Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk—Inflation Risk” for additional information.

Assurant Employee Benefits calculates reserves for long-term disability and life waiver of premium claims using net present value calculations based on current interest rates at the time claims are funded and expectations regarding future interest rates. Waiver of premium refers to a provision in a life insurance policy pursuant to which an insured with a disability that lasts for a specified period no longer has to pay premiums for the duration of the disability or for a stated period, during which time the life insurance coverage provides continued coverage. If interest rates decline, reserves for open and/or new claims in Assurant Employee Benefits would need to be calculated using lower discount rates thereby increasing the net present value of those claims and the required reserves. Depending on the magnitude of the decline, this could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, investment income may be lower than that assumed in setting premium rates.

Our investment portfolio is subject to credit risk.

We are subject to credit risk in our investment portfolio, primarily from our investments in corporate bonds and preferred stocks. Defaults by third parties in the payment or performance of their obligations could reduce our investment income and realized investment gains or result in investment losses. Further, the value of any particular fixed maturity security is subject to impairment based on the creditworthiness of a given issuer. As of December 31, 2007, fixed maturity securities represented 73% of the fair value of our total invested assets. Our fixed maturity portfolio also includes below investment grade securities (rated “BB” or lower by nationally recognized securities rating organizations). These investments comprise approximately 6% of the fair value of our total investments as of December 31, 2007 and generally provide higher expected returns, but present greater risk and can be less liquid than investment grade securities. A significant increase in defaults and impairments on our fixed maturity investment portfolio could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. See “Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk—Credit Risk” for additional information on the composition of our fixed maturity investment portfolio.

We currently invest in a small amount of equity securities (approximately 5% of the fair value of our total investments as of December 31, 2007). However, we have had higher percentages in the past and may make more such investments in the future. Investments in equity securities generally provide higher expected total returns, but present greater risk to preservation of principal than our fixed maturity investments.

In addition, while we currently do not utilize derivative instruments to hedge or manage our interest rate or equity risk, we may do so in the future. Derivative instruments generally present greater risk than fixed maturity investments or equity investments because of their greater sensitivity to market fluctuations. Since August 1, 2003, we have been utilizing derivative instruments to manage the exposure to inflation risk created by our preneed insurance policies that are tied to the CPI. However, we would not be fully protected by the derivative instruments if there were a sharp increase in inflation on a sustained long-term basis which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our commercial mortgage loans and real estate investments subject us to liquidity risk.

Our commercial mortgage loans on real estate investments (which represented approximately 10% of the fair value of our total investments as of December 31, 2007) are relatively illiquid, thus increasing our liquidity risk. In addition, if we require extremely large amounts of cash on short notice, we may have difficulty selling these investments at attractive prices, in a timely manner, or both.

18

Table of Contents

The risk parameters of our investment portfolio may not target an appropriate level of risk, thereby reducing our profitability and diminishing our ability to compete and grow.

We seek to earn returns on our investments to enhance our ability to offer competitive rates and prices to our customers. Accordingly, our investment decisions and objectives are a function of the underlying risks and product profiles of each of our operating segments. However, if we do not succeed in targeting an appropriate overall risk level for our investment portfolio, the return on our investments may be insufficient to meet our profit targets over the long term, thereby reducing our profitability. If, in response, we choose to increase our product prices to maintain profitability, we may diminish our ability to compete and grow.

Environmental liability exposure may result from our commercial mortgage loan portfolio and real estate investments.

Liability under environmental protection laws resulting from our commercial mortgage loan portfolio and real estate investments may harm our financial strength and reduce our profitability. Under the laws of several states, contamination of a property may give rise to a lien on the property to secure recovery of the costs of the cleanup. In some states, this kind of lien has priority over the lien of an existing mortgage against the property, which would impair our ability to foreclose on that property should the related loan be in default. In addition, under the laws of some states and under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, under certain circumstances, we may be liable for costs of addressing releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that require remedy at a property securing a mortgage loan held by us. We also may face this liability after foreclosing on a property securing a mortgage loan held by us after a loan default.

Catastrophe losses, including man-made catastrophe losses, could materially reduce our profitability and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our insurance operations expose us to claims arising out of catastrophes, particularly in our homeowners, life and other personal lines of business. We have experienced, and expect in the future to experience, catastrophe losses that may materially reduce our profitability or have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Catastrophes can be caused by various natural events, including, but not limited to, hurricanes, windstorms, earthquakes, hailstorms, severe winter weather, fires and epidemics, or can be man-made catastrophes, including terrorist attacks or accidents such as airplane crashes. The frequency and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable. Catastrophe losses can vary widely and could significantly exceed our recent historic results. It is possible that both the frequency and severity of man-made catastrophes will increase and that we will not be able to implement exclusions from coverage in our policies or obtain reinsurance for such catastrophes.

The extent of losses from a catastrophe is a function of both the total amount of insured exposure in the area affected by the event and the severity of the event. Most of our catastrophe claims in the past have related to homeowners and other personal lines coverages, which, for the year ended December 31, 2007, represented approximately 87% of our net earned premiums in our Assurant Specialty Property segment. In addition, as of December 31, 2007, approximately 39% of the insurance in force in our homeowners and other personal lines related to properties located in California, Florida and Texas. As a result of our creditor-placed homeowners and creditor-placed manufactured housing insurance products, which automatically provide coverage against an insured’s property being destroyed or damaged by various perils, our concentration in these areas may increase in the future. If other insurers withdraw coverage in these or other states, this may lead to adverse selection and increased utilization of our creditor-placed homeowners or creditor-placed manufactured housing insurance in these areas and may negatively impact loss experience. Adverse selection refers to the process by which an applicant who believes him or herself to be uninsurable, or at greater than average risk, seeks to obtain an insurance policy at a standard premium rate. Claims resulting from natural or man-made catastrophes could cause substantial volatility in our financial results for any fiscal quarter or year and could materially reduce our

19

Table of Contents

profitability or harm our financial condition. Our ability to write new business also could be affected. Increases in the value and geographic concentration of insured property and the effects of inflation could increase the severity of claims from catastrophes in the future.

Pre-tax catastrophe losses in excess of $5,000 (before the benefits of reinsurance) that we have experienced in recent years include (total losses do not include amounts paid in connection with the National Flood Insurance Program as we are either an administrator or are reinsured by the federal government and have no underwriting risk under the Program):

No liquidation in investments was required in connection with these catastrophes as the claims were paid from current cash flow, cash on hand or short-term investments.

In addition, our group life and health insurance operations could be materially impacted by catastrophes such as a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a pandemic or an epidemic that causes a widespread increase in mortality or disability rates or that causes an increase in the need for medical care. If the severity of such an event were sufficiently high, it could exceed our reinsurance coverage limits and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, with respect to our preneed insurance policies, the average age of policyholders is in excess of 73 years. This group is more susceptible to certain epidemics than the overall population, and an epidemic resulting in a higher incidence of mortality could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Some of our segments may also face the loss of premium income due to a large-scale business interruption caused by a catastrophe combined with legislative or regulatory reactions to the event. For example, following hurricanes in 2005, several states suspended premium payment or precluded insurers from canceling coverage in defined areas. While the premiums uncollected were immaterial, a more serious catastrophe combined with a similar legislative or regulatory response could materially impact our ability to collect premiums in connection with our liabilities and thereby have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our ability to manage these risks depends in part on our successful utilization of catastrophic property and life reinsurance to limit the size of property and life losses from a single event or multiple events, and life and disability reinsurance to limit the size of life or disability insurance exposure on an individual insured life. It also depends in part on state regulation that may prohibit us from excluding such risks or from withdrawing from or increasing premium rates in catastrophe-prone areas. As discussed further below, catastrophe reinsurance for our group insurance lines is not currently widely available. This means that the occurrence of a significant catastrophe could materially reduce our profitability and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Reinsurance may not be available or adequate to protect us against losses, and we are subject to the credit risk of reinsurers.

As part of our overall risk and capacity management strategy, we purchase reinsurance for certain risks underwritten by our various operating segments. Market conditions beyond our control determine the availability and cost of the reinsurance protection we purchase. Reinsurance for certain types of catastrophes generally could

20

Table of Contents

become unavailable for some of our businesses and has become more expensive. Due to these changes in the reinsurance market, our exposure to the risk of significant losses from natural or man-made catastrophes may hinder our ability to write future business.

As part of our business, we have reinsured certain life, property and casualty and health risks to reinsurers. Although the reinsurer is liable to us to the extent of the ceded reinsurance, we remain liable to the insured as the direct insurer on all risks reinsured. As a result, ceded reinsurance arrangements do not eliminate our obligation to pay claims. We are subject to credit risk with respect to our ability to recover amounts due from reinsurers. Due to insolvency, adverse underwriting results or inadequate investment returns, our reinsurers may not pay the reinsurance recoverables that they owe to us or they may not pay such recoverables on a timely basis.

Our reinsurance facilities are generally subject to annual renewal. We may not be able to maintain our current reinsurance facilities and, even where highly desirable or necessary, we may not be able to obtain other reinsurance facilities in adequate amounts and at favorable rates. If we are unable to renew our expiring facilities or to obtain new reinsurance facilities, either our net exposures would increase or, if we are unwilling to bear an increase in net exposures, we may have to reduce the level of our underwriting commitments. Either of these potential developments could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We have sold businesses through reinsurance that could again become our direct financial and administrative responsibility if the purchasing companies were to become insolvent.

In the past, we have sold, and in the future we may sell, businesses through reinsurance ceded to third parties. For example, in 2001 we sold the insurance operations of our Fortis Financial Group (“FFG”) division to The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (“The Hartford”) and in 2000 we sold our Long Term Care (“LTC”) division to John Hancock Life Insurance Company (“John Hancock”), now a subsidiary of Manulife Financial Corporation. Most of the general account assets backing reserves coinsured under these sales are held in trusts that could aid in protecting us financially if the purchaser were to fail. However, such trusts have varying provisions regarding how fully funded they are required to be and how often they must be restored to such funded status. Therefore, protection from the trusts is only existent to the extent the coinsurance trusts are funded at the time of reinsurer default. Aside from the coinsurance, a portion of the assets backing FFG general account reserves and all of the FFG separate accounts remain on our balance sheet pursuant to modified coinsurance arrangements. In addition to the financial risk, we have the additional risk of becoming responsible for administering these businesses in the event of a default by either reinsurer. We do not have the administrative systems and capabilities to process this business today. Accordingly, we would need to obtain those capabilities in the event of an insolvency of one or more of the reinsurers of these businesses. We might be forced to obtain such capabilities on unfavorable terms with a resulting material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Due to the structure of our commission program, we are exposed to the credit risk of some of our agents and our clients in Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty Property.

We are subject to the credit risk of the clients and/or agents with which we contract in Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty Property. We advance agents’ commissions as part of our preneed insurance product offerings. These advances are a percentage of the total face amount of coverage as opposed to a percentage of the first-year premium paid, the formula that is more common in other life insurance markets. There is a one-year payback provision against the agency if death or lapse occurs within the first policy year. If SCI, who receives the largest shares of such agent commissions, were unable to fulfill its payback obligations, this could have an adverse effect on our operations and financial condition.

In addition, some of our clients and agents collect premiums on our behalf. If these parties fail to remit payments owed to us or fail to pass on payments they collect on our behalf, it could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

21

Table of Contents

A further decline in the manufactured housing market may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The manufactured housing industry has experienced a significant decline in both shipments and retail sales in the last eight years. The downturn in the manufactured housing industry is a result of several factors, including the impact of repossessions, the lack of retail financing, reduced resale values, and the consolidations of manufacturers and lenders of manufactured housing. In the year ended December 31, 2007, our sales of homeowners’ policies in the manufactured housing sector comprised 12.5% of Assurant Specialty Property’s net written premiums. If these downward trends continue, without diversification and growth in other manufactured housing product lines, our results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

A.M. Best, Moody’s, and S&P rate the financial strength of our insurance company subsidiaries, and a decline in these ratings could affect our standing in the insurance industry and cause our sales and earnings to decrease.

Ratings have become an increasingly important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. A.M. Best rates most of our domestic operating insurance subsidiaries. Moody’s rates six of our domestic operating insurance subsidiaries and S&P rates seven of our domestic operating insurance subsidiaries. The ratings reflect A.M. Best’s, Moody’s, and S&P’s opinions of our subsidiaries’ financial strength, operating performance, strategic position and ability to meet their obligations to policyholders. The ratings are not evaluations directed to investors and are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold our securities. These ratings are subject to periodic review by A.M. Best, Moody’s, and S&P, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to retain these ratings. As a result of their concerns related to the ongoing SEC investigation (see Item 3. Legal Proceedings for more information) A.M. Best and S&P have placed a negative outlook on our ratings. Moody’s has our ratings under review for possible downgrade. For more information on the specific A.M. Best, Moody’s, and S&P ratings of our domestic operating insurance subsidiaries, see “Item 1—Business—Ratings.”

If our ratings are reduced from their current levels by A.M. Best, Moody’s, or S&P, our competitive position in the respective insurance industry segments could suffer and it could be more difficult for us to market our products. Rating agencies may take action to lower our ratings in the future due to, among other things the competitive environment in the insurance industry, which may adversely affect our revenues, the inherent uncertainty in determining reserves for future claims, which may cause us to increase our reserves for claims, the outcome of pending litigation and regulatory investigations, which may adversely affect our financial position and reputation and possible changes in the methodology or criteria applied by the rating agencies. In addition, rating agencies have come under recent scrutiny over their ratings on various mortgage-backed products. As a result, they may become more conservative in their methodology and criteria, which could adversely affect our ratings.

As customers and their advisors place importance on our financial strength ratings, we may lose customers and compete less successfully if we are downgraded. In addition, ratings impact our ability to attract investment capital on favorable terms. If our financial strength ratings are reduced from their current levels by A.M. Best, Moody’s, or S&P, our cost of borrowing would likely increase, our sales and earnings could decrease and our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Contracts representing approximately 32% of Assurant Solutions’ and 12% of Assurant Specialty Property’s net earned premiums and fee income for the year ended December 31, 2007 contain provisions requiring the applicable subsidiaries to maintain minimum A.M. Best financial strength ratings ranging from “A” or better to “B” or better, depending on the contract. Our clients may terminate these contracts or not renew contracts if the subsidiaries’ ratings fall below these minimum or other acceptable levels. Under our marketing agreement with SCI, American Memorial Life Insurance Company (“AMLIC”), one of our subsidiaries, is required to maintain an A.M. Best financial strength rating of “B” or better throughout the term of the agreement. If AMLIC fails to maintain this rating for a period of 180 days, SCI may terminate the agreement.

22

Table of Contents

The failure to effectively maintain and modernize our information systems could adversely affect our business.

Our business is dependent upon the ability to keep up to date with technological advances. This is particularly important where our systems, including our ability to keep our systems integrated with those of our clients, are critical to the operation of our business and financial reporting. If we do not update our systems to reflect technological advancements or protect our systems, our relationships and ability to do business with our clients may be adversely affected.

Our business depends significantly on effective information systems, and we have many different information systems for our various businesses. We must commit significant resources to maintain and enhance our existing information systems and develop new information systems in order to keep pace with continuing changes in information processing technology, evolving industry, regulatory and legal standards and changing customer preferences. A failure to maintain effective and efficient information systems, or a failure to efficiently and effectively consolidate our information systems to eliminate redundant or obsolete applications, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition or our ability to do business in a particular jurisdiction. If we do not effectively maintain adequate systems we could experience adverse consequences, including inadequate information on which to base pricing, underwriting and reserving decisions, the loss of existing customers, difficulty attracting new customers, customer, provider and agent disputes, regulatory problems, such as failure to meet prompt payment obligations, litigation exposure, or increases in administrative expenses.

Our management information, internal control and financial reporting systems may need further enhancements and development to satisfy continuing financial and other reporting requirements of our insurers and of us.

Failure to protect our clients’ confidential information and privacy could result in the loss of reputation and customers, reduction to our profitability and/or subject us to fines, litigation and penalties.

A number of our businesses are subject to privacy regulations and to confidentiality obligations. For example, the collection and use of patient data in our Assurant Health and Assurant Employee Benefits segments is the subject of national and state legislation, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), and certain activities conducted by our segments are subject to the privacy regulations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. We also have contractual obligations to protect certain confidential information we obtain from our existing vendors, servicing companies, and clients. These obligations generally include protecting such confidential information to the same extent as we protect our own confidential information in accordance with laws that govern our clients or us, or in compliance with client requirements. The actions we take to protect such confidential information vary by operating segment and may include, among other things, training and educating our employees regarding our obligations relating to confidential information, actively monitoring our record retention plans and any changes in privacy and compliance requirements of the jurisdictions in which our regulated subsidiaries do business, drafting appropriate contractual provisions into any contract that raises proprietary and confidentiality issues, maintaining and utilizing appropriately secure storage facilities for tangible records, and limiting access, as appropriate, to both tangible records and to electronic information.

In addition, we maintain a comprehensive written information security program with appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to protect such confidential information. If we do not properly comply with privacy and security laws and regulations that require us to protect confidential information, we could experience adverse consequences, including loss of customers and related revenue, regulatory problems (including fines and penalties), loss of reputation and civil litigation.

See “Risks Related to Our Industry—Costs of compliance with privacy and security laws could adversely affect our business and results of operations.”

23

Table of Contents

Our ability to achieve our desired market positions may be significantly impaired if we do not find suitable acquisition candidates or new insurance ventures, and even if we do, we may not successfully integrate any such acquired companies or successfully promote such ventures, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

From time to time, we evaluate possible acquisition transactions and the start-up of complementary businesses, and at any given time, we may be engaged in discussions with respect to possible acquisitions and new ventures. While our business model is not dependent upon acquisitions or new insurance ventures, the time frame for achieving or further improving upon our desired market positions can be significantly shortened through opportune acquisitions or new insurance ventures. Historically, acquisitions and new insurance ventures have played a significant role in achieving desired market positions in some, but not all, of our businesses. No assurance can be given that we will be able to identify suitable acquisition transactions or insurance ventures, that such transactions will be financed and completed on acceptable terms or that our future acquisitions or ventures will be successful. Any deficiencies in the process of integrating any companies we do acquire or investing in and promoting new ventures could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, implementation of an acquisition strategy entails a number of risks, including among other things inaccurate assessment of undisclosed liabilities; difficulties in realizing projected efficiencies, synergies and cost savings; failure to achieve anticipated revenues, earnings or cash flow; an increase in our indebtedness; and a limitation in our ability to access additional capital when needed. For example, we recognized a goodwill impairment of $1,260,939 in 2002 related to an earlier acquisition. Our failure to adequately address these acquisition risks could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The inability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends to us in sufficient amounts could harm our ability to meet our obligations and pay future stockholder dividends.

As a holding company whose principal assets are the capital stock of our subsidiaries, we rely primarily on dividends and other statutorily permissible payments from our subsidiaries to meet our obligations for payment of interest and principal on outstanding debt obligations, dividends to stockholders (including any dividends on our common stock) and corporate expenses. The ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends and to make such other payments in the future will depend on their statutory surplus, future statutory earnings and regulatory restrictions. Except to the extent that we are a creditor with recognized claims against our subsidiaries, claims of the subsidiaries’ creditors, including policyholders, have priority with respect to the assets and earnings of the subsidiaries over the claims of our creditors. If any of our subsidiaries should become insolvent, liquidate or otherwise reorganize, our creditors and stockholders will have no right to proceed against the assets of that subsidiary or to cause the liquidation, bankruptcy or winding-up of the subsidiary under applicable liquidation, bankruptcy or winding-up laws. The applicable insurance laws of the jurisdiction where each of our insurance subsidiaries is domiciled would govern any proceedings relating to that subsidiary. The insurance authority of that jurisdiction would act as a liquidator or rehabilitator for the subsidiary. Both creditors and policyholders of the subsidiary would be entitled to payment in full from the subsidiary’s assets before we, as a stockholder, would be entitled to receive any distribution from the subsidiary.

The payment of dividends to us by any of our regulated operating subsidiaries in excess of a certain amount (i.e., extraordinary dividends) must be approved by the subsidiary’s domiciliary state department of insurance. Ordinary dividends, for which no regulatory approval is generally required, are limited to amounts determined by a formula, which varies by state. The formula for the majority of the states in which our subsidiaries are domiciled is based on the prior year’s statutory net income or 10% of the statutory surplus as of the end of the prior year. Some states limit ordinary dividends to the greater of these two amounts, others limit them to the lesser of these two amounts and some states exclude prior year realized capital gains from prior year net income in determining ordinary dividend capacity. Some states have an additional stipulation that dividends may only be paid out of earned surplus. If insurance regulators determine that payment of an ordinary dividend or any other payments by our insurance subsidiaries to us (such as payments under a tax sharing agreement or payments for

24

Table of Contents

employee or other services) would be adverse to policyholders or creditors, the regulators may block such payments that would otherwise be permitted without prior approval. No assurance can be given that there will not be further regulatory actions restricting the ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends. We may seek approval of regulators to pay dividends in excess of any amounts that would be permitted without such approval. If the ability of insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other payments to us is materially restricted by regulatory requirements, it could adversely affect our ability to pay any dividends on our common stock and/or service our debt and pay our other corporate expenses. For more information on the maximum amount our subsidiaries could pay us in 2008 without regulatory approval, see “Item 5—Market For Registrants’ Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities—Dividend Policy.”

Our credit facilities also contain limitations on our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders if we are in default or such dividend payments would cause us to be in default of the credit facilities.

The success of our business strategy depends on the continuing service of the members of our senior management team, and any failure to adequately provide for the succession of senior management and other key executives could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our business and results of operations could be adversely affected if we fail to adequately plan for the succession of our senior management and other key executives. While we have succession plans in place and change in control severance agreements with senior management and certain key executives, these do not guarantee that the services of qualified senior executives will continue to be available to us. In addition, if we fail to effectively retain senior management and other key executives, such failure may have an adverse effect on the retention of employees and others in management.

Risks Related to Our Industry

Our business is subject to risks related to litigation and regulatory actions.

In addition to the occasional employment-related litigation to which businesses are subject, we are a defendant in actions arising out of, and are involved in, various regulatory investigations and examinations relating to our insurance and other related business operations. We are subject to comprehensive regulation and oversight by insurance departments in jurisdictions in which we do business. These insurance departments have broad administrative powers with respect to all aspects of the insurance business and, in particular, monitor the manner in which an insurance company offers, sells and administers its products. Therefore, we may from time to time be subject to a variety of legal and regulatory actions relating to our current and past business operations, including, but not limited to:

25

Table of Contents

The prevalence and outcomes of any such actions cannot be predicted, and no assurances can be given that such actions or any litigation would not materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, if we were to experience difficulties with our relationship with a regulatory body in a given jurisdiction, it could have a material adverse effect on our ability to do business in that jurisdiction.

In addition, plaintiffs continue to bring new types of legal claims against insurance and related companies. Current and future court decisions and legislative activity may increase our exposure to these types of claims. Multiparty or class action claims may present additional exposure to substantial economic, non-economic or punitive damage awards. The loss of even one of these claims, if it resulted in a significant damage award or a judicial ruling that was otherwise detrimental, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. This risk of potential liability may make reasonable settlements of claims more difficult to obtain. We cannot determine with any certainty what new theories of recovery may evolve or what their impact may be on our businesses.

In 2007, we became the subject of a certain amount of negative publicity that criticized our coverage denial practices. Subsequently, we have experienced an increase in regulatory scrutiny of our coverage denial practices. In particular, Assurant Health has faced enhanced regulatory examination in the state of Connecticut, focused specifically on our practices relating to exclusion of coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. These regulatory examinations and investigations could result in, among other things, changes in our business practices and claims handling practices, increases in policy liabilities, reopening of closed or denied claims, changes in governance or other oversight procedures, fines and other actions by the regulatory agencies. Such results, singly or in combination, could harm our reputation, cause negative publicity, adversely affect our ratings, or impair our ability to sell or retain insurance policies, thereby adversely affecting our business.

Another focus of regulators has been the accounting treatment for finite reinsurance or other non-traditional or loss mitigation insurance products. Some state regulators have made routine inquiries to some of our insurers regarding finite reinsurance. Additionally, as part of an ongoing, industry-wide investigation, the Company and certain of its officers and former employees have received subpoenas and requests from the SEC in connection with an investigation by the SEC Staff into certain finite reinsurance contracts entered into by the Company. We are cooperating fully and are complying with the requests.

We have conducted an evaluation of the transactions that could potentially fall within the scope of the subpoenas, as defined by the authorities, and the Company has provided information as requested. Based on our investigation to date, we have concluded that there was a verbal side agreement with respect to one of our reinsurers under our catastrophic reinsurance program. The contract to which this verbal side agreement applied was accounted for using reinsurance accounting as opposed to deposit accounting. While management believes that the difference resulting from the appropriate alternative accounting treatment would be immaterial to our financial position or results of operations, regulators may reach a different conclusion. In 2004 and 2003, premiums ceded to this reinsurer were $2,600 and $1,500, respectively, and losses ceded were $10,000 and zero, respectively. This contract expired in December 2004 and was not renewed.

In July 2007, we learned that each of the following five individuals, Robert B. Pollock, President and Chief Executive Officer, Philip Bruce Camacho, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Adam Lamnin, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Assurant Solutions/Assurant Specialty Property, Michael Steinman, Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary of Assurant Solutions/Assurant Specialty Property and Dan Folse, Vice President-Risk Management of Assurant Solutions/Assurant Specialty Property, received Wells notices from the SEC in connection with its ongoing investigation. A Wells notice is an indication that the

26

Table of Contents

staff of the SEC is considering recommending that the SEC bring a civil enforcement action against the recipient for violating various provisions of the federal securities laws. Under SEC procedures, the recipients have the opportunity to respond to the SEC Staff before a formal recommendation is finalized.

On July 17, 2007, we announced that the Board of Directors (the “Board”) had placed all five employees on administrative leave, pending further review of this matter. On July 18, the Board appointed J. Kerry Clayton as interim President and Chief Executive Officer and Michael J. Peninger as interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The Board’s actions were based on the recommendations of its Special Committee of non-management directors which thereafter conducted a thorough investigation of the events that had resulted in the receipt of the Wells notices. The Special Committee reviewed the relevant documents, conducted interviews and worked with outside counsel in order to investigate these matters and to recommend appropriate actions to the Board with respect to the SEC investigation. On August 9, 2007, Messrs. Steinman and Folse’s employment with the Company was terminated.

We have completed a comprehensive review, and based on that review, and the work of the Special Committee, the Board unanimously voted to reinstate Mr. Pollock as President and Chief Executive Officer, effective January 28, 2008. Mr. Clayton transitioned with Mr. Pollock and remained in an emeritus status through the end of February 2008.

The Board’s decision to reinstate Mr. Pollock implies no conclusion concerning the outcome of the SEC Staff’s ongoing investigation, and the SEC Staff’s Wells notice to him remains in effect. Our decision reflects solely the Board’s judgment, based on the Special Committee’s comprehensive review, that it was in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to return Mr. Pollock to his positions at that time, rather than await the conclusion of the SEC’s investigation, because of concerns over long term leadership by employees, shareholders and customers. The SEC Staff’s inquiry continues, and we are cooperating fully. We cannot predict the duration or outcome of the investigation.

In the course of its response to SEC Staff inquiries, we identified certain problems related to our document production process. The Company continues to work diligently to ensure that all responsive documents in our possession have been provided to the SEC Staff and the Special Committee has considered those documents in performing its review. These production issues have delayed resolution of this matter. Messrs. Camacho and Lamnin remain on administrative leave.

In relation to the SEC investigation discussed above, the SEC may charge the Company and/or the individuals with violations of the federal securities laws, including alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), and/or 13(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and/or Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and may seek civil monetary penalties, injunctive relief and other remedies against the Company and individuals, including potentially seeking a bar preventing one or more of the individuals from serving as an officer or director of a public company. The SEC may also take the position that the Company should restate its consolidated financial statements to address the accounting treatment referred to above. No settlement of any kind can be reached without approval by the SEC and we have not accrued for any civil monetary penalties since we cannot reasonably estimate the amount of such civil monetary penalties at this time.

Depending upon the outcome of the SEC investigation, we may become subject to derivative civil claims made on our behalf against certain of our current and former officers and directors. The amount of time that may be necessary to resolve these claims is unpredictable, and in defending them, our management’s attention may be diverted from the day-to-day operations of our business, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, an unfavorable outcome in any such litigation could require us to incur significant legal expenses and substantial judgments or settlements pursuant to any indemnification obligations that we may have with our current or former officers and directors, which could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We cannot predict at this time the effect that current litigation, investigations and regulatory activity will have on the insurance industry or our business. Given our prominent position in the insurance industry, it is

27

Table of Contents

possible that we will become subject to further investigations and have lawsuits filed against us. Our involvement in any investigations and lawsuits would cause us to incur legal costs and, if we were found to have violated any laws, we could be required to pay fines and damages, perhaps in material amounts. In addition, we could be adversely affected by the negative publicity for the insurance industry related to any such proceedings, and by any new industry-wide regulations or practices that may result from any such proceedings.

We face significant competitive pressures in our businesses, which may reduce premium rates and prevent us from pricing our products at rates that will allow us to be profitable.

In each of our lines of business, we compete with other insurance companies or service providers, depending on the line and products, although we have no single competitor who competes against us in all of the business lines in which we operate. Assurant Solutions and Assurant Specialty Property have numerous competitors in their product lines, but we believe no other company participates in all of the same lines or offers comparable comprehensive capabilities. Competitors for both operating segments include national and regional insurance companies, managing and general agencies, and financial institutions.

While we are among the largest competitors in terms of market share in many of our business lines, in some cases there are one or more major market players in a particular line of business. In Assurant Health, we believe the market is characterized by many competitors, and our main competitors include health insurance companies, HMOs and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans in the states in which we write business. In Assurant Employee Benefits, competitors include benefits and life insurance companies, dental managed care entities and not-for-profit dental plans.

Competition in our businesses is based on many factors, including quality of service, product features, price, scope of distribution, scale, financial strength ratings and name recognition. We compete, and will continue to compete, for customers and distributors with many insurance companies and other financial services companies. We compete not only for business and individual customers, employer and other group customers, but also for agents and distribution relationships. Some of our competitors may offer a broader array of products than our specific subsidiaries with which they compete in particular markets, may have a greater diversity of distribution resources, may have better brand recognition, may from time to time have more competitive pricing, may have lower cost structures or, with respect to insurers, may have higher financial strength or claims paying ratings. Some may also have greater financial resources with which to compete. For example, many of our insurance products, particularly our group benefits and health insurance policies, are underwritten annually and, accordingly, there is a risk that group purchasers may be able to obtain more favorable terms from competitors rather than renewing coverage with us. The effect of competition may, as a result, adversely affect the persistency of these and other products, as well as our ability to sell products in the future. In Assurant Solutions, as a result of state and federal regulatory developments and changes in prior years, certain financial institutions are now able to offer a product called debt protection which is similar to credit insurance and financial institutions are able to affiliate with other insurance companies to offer services similar to our own. This has resulted in new competitors with significant financial resources entering some of our markets. Assurant Solutions currently provides debt protection administration and as financial institutions gain experience with debt protection administration, their reliance on third party administrators may diminish.

Moreover, some of our competitors may have a lower target for returns on capital allocated to their business than we do, which may lead them to price their products and services lower than we do. In addition, from time to time, companies enter and exit the markets in which we operate, thereby increasing competition at times when there are new entrants. For example, several large insurance companies have recently entered the market for individual health insurance products. We may lose business to competitors offering competitive products at lower prices, or for other reasons, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

28

Table of Contents

In certain markets, we compete with organizations that have a substantial market share. In addition, with regard to Assurant Health, organizations with sizable market share or provider-owned plans may be able to obtain favorable financial arrangements from health care providers that are not available to us. Without our own similar arrangements, we may not be able to compete effectively in such markets.

New competition could also cause the supply of insurance to change, which could affect our ability to price our products at attractive rates and thereby adversely affect our underwriting results. Although there are some impediments facing potential competitors who wish to enter the markets we serve, the entry of new competitors into our markets can occur, affording our customers significant flexibility in moving to other insurance providers.

The insurance industry is cyclical, which may impact our results.

The insurance industry is cyclical. Although no two cycles are the same, insurance industry cycles have typically lasted for periods ranging from two to ten years. The segments of the insurance markets in which we operate tend not to be correlated to each other, with each segment having its own cyclicality. Periods of intense price competition due to excessive underwriting capacity, periods when shortages of underwriting capacity permit more favorable rate levels, consequent fluctuations in underwriting results and the occurrence of other losses characterize the conditions in these markets. Historically, insurers have experienced significant fluctuations in operating results due to volatile and sometimes unpredictable developments, many of which are beyond the direct control of the insurer, including competition, frequency of occurrence or severity of catastrophic events, levels of capacity, general economic conditions and other factors. This may cause a decline in revenue at times in the cycle if we choose not to reduce our product prices in order to maintain our market position, because of the adverse effect on profitability of such a price reduction. We can be expected, therefore, to experience the effects of such cyclicality and changes in customer expectations of appropriate premium levels, the frequency or severity of claims or other loss events or other factors affecting the insurance industry that generally could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

The insurance and related businesses in which we operate may be subject to periodic negative publicity, which may negatively impact our financial results.

We communicate with and distribute our products and services ultimately to individual consumers. There may be a perception that some of these purchasers may be unsophisticated and in need of consumer protection. Accordingly, from time to time, consumer advocate groups or the media may focus attention on our products and services, thereby subjecting our industries to the possibility of periodic negative publicity.

We may also be negatively impacted if another company in one of our industries or in a related industry engages in practices resulting in increased public attention to our businesses. Negative publicity may also occur as a result of judicial inquiries and regulatory or governmental action with respect to our products, services and industry commercial practices. Negative publicity may result in increased regulation and legislative scrutiny of industry practices as well as increased litigation or enforcement action by civil and criminal authorities. Additionally, negative publicity may increase our costs of doing business and adversely affect our profitability by impeding our ability to market our products and services, requiring us to change our products or services or increasing the regulatory burdens under which we operate.

Ongoing focus by the government and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) on certain industry practices, including but not limited to, broker contingent commissions and finite or financial reinsurance, has created negative publicity for some insurers and the reinsurance industry, including those seeking reinsurance covers.

29

Table of Contents

We are subject to extensive governmental laws and regulations, which increase our costs and could restrict the conduct of our business.

Our operating subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation and supervision in the jurisdictions in which they do business. Such regulation is generally designed to protect the interests of policyholders, as opposed to stockholders and other investors. To that end, the laws of the various states and other jurisdictions establish insurance departments with broad powers with respect to such things as:

Our non-insurance operations and certain aspects of our insurance operations are subject to various federal and state regulation including state and federal consumer protection and other laws. Similarly, our foreign subsidiaries are subject to legislation in the countries in which they are domiciled. We face the challenge of conducting business in a multi-national setting with varying regulations.

Assurant Health is also required by some jurisdictions to provide coverage to persons who would not otherwise be considered eligible by insurers. Each of these jurisdictions dictates the types of insurance and the level of coverage that must be provided to such involuntary risks. Our share of these involuntary risks is mandatory and generally a function of our respective share of the voluntary market by line of insurance in each jurisdiction. Assurant Health is exposed to some risk of losses in connection with mandated participation in such programs in those jurisdictions in which they are still effective. HIPAA requires certain guaranteed issuance and renewability of health insurance coverage for individuals and small groups (generally 50 or fewer employees) and limits exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. See also “—Risks Related to Our Industry—Costs of compliance with privacy and security laws could adversely affect our business and results of operations.” If regulatory requirements impede our ability to raise premium rates, utilize new policy forms or terminate, deny or cancel coverage in any of our businesses, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

The capacity for an insurance company’s growth in premiums is in part a function of its statutory surplus. Maintaining appropriate levels of statutory surplus, as measured by SAP and procedures, is considered important by insurance regulatory authorities and the private agencies that rate insurers’ claims-paying abilities and financial strength. Failure to maintain certain levels of statutory surplus could result in increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, action by regulatory authorities or a downgrade by rating agencies.

30

Table of Contents

We may be unable to maintain all required licenses and approvals and our business may not fully comply with the wide variety of applicable laws and regulations or the relevant authority’s interpretation of the laws and regulations. Also, some regulatory authorities have relatively broad discretion to grant, renew or revoke licenses and approvals or to limit or restrain operations in their jurisdiction. If we do not have the requisite licenses and approvals or do not comply with applicable regulatory requirements, the insurance regulatory authorities could preclude or temporarily suspend us from carrying on or limit some or all of our activities or monetarily penalize us. That type of action could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth.

Legislation or other regulatory reform that increases the regulatory requirements imposed on us or that changes the way we are able to do business may significantly harm our business or results of operations in the future. For example, some states have imposed new time limits for the payment of uncontested covered claims and require health care and dental service plans to pay interest on uncontested claims not paid promptly within the required time period. Some states have also granted their insurance regulatory agencies additional authority to impose monetary penalties and other sanctions on health and dental plans engaging in certain unfair payment practices. If we were to be unable for any reason to comply with these requirements, it could result in substantial costs to us and may materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Legislative or regulatory changes that could significantly harm our subsidiaries and us include, but are not limited to:

In recent years, the state insurance regulatory framework has come under increased federal scrutiny and some state legislatures have considered or enacted laws that may alter or increase state authority to regulate insurance companies and insurance holding companies. Further, the NAIC and state insurance regulators are

31

Table of Contents

re-examining existing laws and regulations, specifically focusing on modifications to holding company regulations, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws. Although the U.S. federal government does not directly regulate the insurance business, changes in federal legislation and administrative policies in several areas could significantly impact the insurance industry and us. The federal Antitrust Modernization Commission has recently recommended that the U.S. Congress consider the repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, one of the bases for the current system of state regulation of the insurance industry, while the American Counsel of Life Insurers and others are promoting the introduction of an optional federal charter for certain insurers. Moreover, federal legislation and administrative policies in areas such as employee benefit plan regulation, financial services regulation and federal taxation can reduce our profitability. Additionally, there have been attempts by the NAIC and several states to limit the use of discretionary clauses in policy forms. The elimination of discretionary clauses could increase our costs under our life, health and disability insurance policies. New interpretations of existing laws and the passage of new legislation may harm our ability to sell new policies and increase our claims exposure on policies we issued previously.

A number of legislative proposals have been made at the federal level over the past several years that could impose added burdens on Assurant Health. These proposals would, among other things, mandate benefits with respect to certain diseases or medical procedures, require plans to offer an independent external review of certain coverage decisions, establish association health plans for small businesses, and establish a national health insurance program. Any of these proposals, if implemented, could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition. Federal changes in Medicare and Medicaid that reduce provider reimbursements could have negative implications for the private sector due to cost shifting. State small employer group and individual health insurance market reforms to increase access and affordability could also reduce profitability by precluding us from appropriately pricing for risk in our individual and small employer group health insurance policies.

With respect to Assurant Specialty Property, federal legislative proposals regarding National Catastrophe Insurance, if adopted, could reduce the business need for some of the property and casualty related products provided by Assurant Specialty Property.

The NAIC has adopted the Annual Financial Reporting Model Act (which prior to revision was known as the Model Audit Rule), that, when adopted by states, will impose internal controls similar to those mandated by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (which we refer to as SOX 404), with some differences for insurance companies. The latest date of adoption by any state, as prescribed by the NAIC, is 2010. These SOX 404 type controls will add an additional layer of internal review for insurer financial statements and subject insurers to varying levels of review by state insurance regulators. This could result in potential exposure for fines and penalties for non-compliance. In addition, the NAIC has adopted changes to statutory accounting principles, which may negatively impact insurer financial reporting requirements and the profitability of insurance operations on a statutory basis.

Additionally, the Attorney General of Mississippi has initiated legal actions against a number of large insurers to invalidate or interpret the flood exclusion in various insurance policies of hurricane-affected claimants, so as to require coverage for losses from hurricane floods and tidal waves. The named insurers are contesting such action. Although none of the Assurant companies has been specifically named as defendants, the lawsuit names as unknown defendants, “any business entity qualified to do business in the State of Mississippi who offered insurance, similar to the named insurers, to the detriment of the citizens of the State.” As a result, if any of our companies are determined to be a defendant and the Mississippi Attorney General prevails, this could result in negative publicity or have a materially adverse effect on our current financial results as well as future pricing and profitability.

We cannot predict with certainty the effect any proposed or future legislation, regulations or NAIC initiatives may have on the conduct of our business. The insurance laws or regulations adopted or amended from time to time may be more restrictive or may result in materially higher costs than current requirements.

32

Table of Contents

It is difficult to predict the effect of the current investigations in connection with insurance industry practices. See the preceding section entitled “—Our business is subject to risks related to litigation and regulatory actions.”

Costs of compliance with privacy and security laws could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

State privacy laws, particularly those with “opt-in” clauses, or provisions that enable an individual to elect information sharing instead of being automatically included, can affect all our businesses. These laws make it harder for our affiliated businesses to share information for marketing purposes, such as generating new sales leads and participating in joint marketing arrangements.

Similarly, the federal and various state “do not solicit” lists could pose a litigation risk to Assurant Solutions. Even an inadvertent failure to comply with consumers’ requests to be added to the “do not solicit” list could result in litigation.

Furthermore, foreign privacy regulations could limit the efficiency of our foreign operations and reduce profitability. For example, insurers domiciled in the European Union may not send data that may contain customer information to the U.S., where established systems and operational procedures exist.

HIPAA and the implementing regulations that have been adopted impose obligations for issuers of health and dental insurance coverage and health and dental benefit plan sponsors. HIPAA also establishes requirements for maintaining the confidentiality and security of individually identifiable health information and standards for electronic health care transactions. The Department of Health and Human Services promulgated final HIPAA regulations in 2002. The privacy regulations required compliance by April 2003, the electronic transactions regulations by October 2003 and the security regulations by April 2005. There are new provisions relating to the National Provider Identification Number that our health and dental businesses are in compliance with. As have other entities in the health care industry, we have incurred and will continue to incur substantial costs in complying with the requirements of the HIPAA regulations.

HIPAA is far-reaching and complex and proper interpretation and practice under the law continue to evolve. Consequently, our efforts to measure, monitor and adjust our business practices to comply with HIPAA are ongoing. Failure to comply with HIPAA could result in regulatory fines and civil lawsuits. Knowing and intentional violations of these rules may also result in federal criminal penalties.

Beginning in early 2005, several large organizations became subjects of intense public scrutiny due to high-profile data security breaches involving sensitive financial and health information. These events focused national attention on identity theft and the duty of organizations to notify impacted consumers in the event of a data security breach. Several federal bills are pending in Congress and currently 36 states have passed legislation requiring customer notification in the event of a data security breach. Most state laws take their lead from recently enacted California Civil Code Section 1798.82, which requires businesses that conduct business in California to disclose any breach of security to any resident whose unencrypted data is believed to have been disclosed. Several significant legal, operational and reputational risks exist with regard to data breach and customer notification. Federal pre-emption relating to this issue may reduce our compliance costs. Nonetheless, a breach of data security requiring public notification can result in regulatory fines, penalties or sanctions, civil lawsuits, loss of reputation, loss of customers and reduction of our profitability.

33

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Applicable laws and our certificate of incorporation and by-laws may discourage takeovers and business combinations that our stockholders might consider in their best interests.

State laws and our certificate of incorporation and by-laws may delay, defer, prevent or render more difficult a takeover attempt that our stockholders might consider in their best interests. For instance, they may prevent our stockholders from receiving the benefit from any premium to the market price of our common stock offered by a bidder in a takeover context. Even in the absence of a takeover attempt, the existence of these provisions may adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock if they are viewed as discouraging takeover attempts in the future.

State laws and our certificate of incorporation and by-laws may also make it difficult for stockholders to replace or remove our directors. These provisions may facilitate director entrenchment, which may delay, defer or prevent a change in our control, which may not be in the best interests of our stockholders.

The following provisions in our certificate of incorporation and by-laws have anti-takeover effects and may delay, defer or prevent a takeover attempt that our stockholders might consider in their best interests. In particular, our certificate of incorporation and by-laws:

In addition, Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware may limit the ability of an “interested stockholder” to engage in business combinations with us. An interested stockholder is defined to include persons owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock.

Applicable insurance laws may make it difficult to effect a change of control of our Company.

Before a person can acquire control of an insurance company in the U.S. and certain other countries, prior written approval must be obtained from the insurance commissioner of the jurisdiction where the insurer is domiciled. For example, generally, state statutes provide that control over a domestic insurer is presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing, 10% or more of the voting securities of the domestic insurer. However, the State of Florida, in which certain of our insurance subsidiaries are domiciled, defines control as 5% or more. Because a person acquiring 5% or more of our common stock would indirectly control the same percentage of the stock of our Florida subsidiaries, the insurance change of control laws of Florida would apply to such transaction and at 10%, the laws of many other

34

Table of Contents

states would likely apply to such a transaction. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of a domestic insurer, a state insurance commissioner will typically consider such factors as the financial strength of the applicant, the integrity of the applicant’s board of directors and executive officers, the applicant’s plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control.

Our stock and the stocks of other companies in the insurance industry are subject to stock price and trading volume volatility.

From time to time, the stock price and the number of shares traded of companies in the insurance industry experience periods of significant volatility. Company-specific issues and developments generally in the insurance industry and in the regulatory environment may cause this volatility. Our stock price may fluctuate in response to a number of events and factors, including:

In addition, broad market and industry fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

35

Table of Contents