ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

There are a number of factors, many beyond our control, which may cause results to differ significantly from our expectations. Some of these factors are described below. Any factor described in this report could by itself, or together with one or more other factors, have a negative effect on our business, results of operations and/or financial condition. There may be factors not described in this report that could also cause results to differ from our expectations.

Insurance market conditions may alter the effectiveness of our current business strategy and impact our revenues.

The property and casualty insurance business is highly competitive. We compete in a fragmented market comprised of many insurers, ranging from smaller single state mono-line insurers who have an extensive knowledge of local markets to large national insurers who offer multiple product lines and whose financial strength and resources may be greater than ours. In many instances, coverage we offer is also available through mutual entities whose return on equity objectives may be lower than ours. Also, there are many opportunities for self-insurance and for participation in an alternative risk transfer mechanism, such as captive insurers or risk retention groups.

Competition in the property and casualty insurance business is based on many factors, including premiums charged and other terms and conditions of coverage, services provided, financial ratings assigned by independent rating agencies, claims services, reputation, geographic scope, local presence, agent and client relationships, financial strength and the experience of the insurance company in the line of insurance to be written. Actions of competitors could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain business at current premium levels, impact our market share and reduce the profits that would otherwise arise from operations.

Because we are a property and casualty insurer, our business may suffer as a result of unforeseen catastrophe losses.

As a property and casualty insurer we are exposed to claims arising out of catastrophes, primarily through our workers' compensation and Syndicate 1729 operations. Catastrophes can be caused by various events, including hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, windstorms, earthquakes, hailstorms, explosions, flooding, severe winter weather and fires and may include man-made events, such as terrorist attacks or a wide-spread financial crisis. The incidence, frequency and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable. While we use historical data and modeling tools to assess our potential exposure to catastrophic losses under various conditions and probability scenarios, such assessments do not necessarily accurately predict future losses or accurately measure our potential exposure. 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.

Insurance companies are not permitted to reserve for a catastrophe until it has occurred. Although we purchase reinsurance protection for risks we believe bear a significant level of catastrophe exposure, actual losses resulting from a

catastrophic event or events may exceed our reinsurance protection. It is therefore possible that a catastrophic event or multiple catastrophic events could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

Our results of operations and financial condition may be affected if actual insured losses differ from our loss reserves or if actual amounts recoverable under reinsurance agreements differ from our estimated recoverables.

We establish reserves as balance sheet liabilities representing our estimates of amounts needed to resolve reported and unreported losses and pay related loss adjustment expenses. Our largest liability is our reserve for loss and loss adjustment expenses. Due to the size of our reserve for loss and loss adjustment expenses, even a small percentage adjustment to our reserve can have a material effect on our results of operations for the period in which the change is made.

The process of estimating loss reserves is complex. Significant periods of time often elapse between the occurrence of an insured loss, the reporting of the loss by the insured and payment of that loss. Ultimate loss costs, even for claims with similar characteristics, can vary significantly depending upon many factors, including but not limited to, the nature of the claim, including whether or not the claim is an individual or a mass tort claim, and the personal situation of the claimant or the claimant’s family, the outcome of jury trials, the legislative and judicial climate where the insured event occurred, general economic conditions and, for claims involving bodily injury, the trend of healthcare costs. Consequently, the loss cost estimation process requires actuarial skill and the application of judgment, and such estimates require periodic revision. As part of the reserving process, we review the known facts surrounding reported claims as well as historical claims data and consider the impact of various factors such as:

This process assumes that past experience, adjusted for the effects of current developments and anticipated trends, is an appropriate, but not necessarily accurate, basis for predicting future events. There is no precise method for evaluating the impact of any specific factor on the adequacy of reserves, and actual results are likely to differ from original estimates. We evaluate our reserves each period and increase or decrease reserves as necessary based on our estimate of future claims payments. An increase to reserves has a negative effect on our results of operations in the period of increase; a reduction to reserves has a positive effect on our results of operations in the period of reduction.

Our loss reserves also may be affected by court decisions that expand liability of our policies after they have been issued and priced. In addition, a significant jury award, or series of awards, against one or more of our insureds could require us to pay large sums of money in excess of our reserved amounts. Due to uncertainties inherent in the jury system, any case that is litigated to a jury verdict has the potential to incur a loss that has a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We purchase reinsurance to mitigate the effect of large losses. Our receivable from reinsurers on unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses represents our estimate of the amount of our reserve for losses that will be recoverable under our reinsurance programs. We base our estimate of funds recoverable upon our expectation of ultimate losses and the portion of those losses that we estimate to be allocable to reinsurers based upon the terms and conditions of our reinsurance agreements. Given the uncertainty of the ultimate amounts of our losses, our estimates of losses and related amounts recoverable may vary significantly from the eventual outcome. Also, we estimate premiums ceded under reinsurance agreements wherein the premium due to the reinsurer, subject to certain maximums and minimums, is based in part on losses reimbursed or to be reimbursed under the agreement. Due to the size of our reinsurance balances, changes to our estimate of the amount of reinsurance that is due to us could have a material effect on our results of operations in the period for which the change is made.

We are exposed to and may face adverse developments involving mass tort products liability claims arising from allegedly defective medical products, including medical devices, biotechnology and diagnostic products, prescription and non-prescription pharmaceuticals, personal care products or animal healthcare products.

Establishing claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for mass tort claims is subject to uncertainties due to many factors, including expanded theories of liability, geographical location and jurisdiction of the lawsuits and the number of manufacturers and/or distributors involved. Moreover, it is difficult to estimate our ultimate liability for such claims due to evolving judicial interpretations of various tort theories of liability and defense theories, such as federal preemption and joint and several liability, as well as the application of insurance coverage to these claims.

If market conditions cause reinsurance to be more costly or unavailable, we may be required to bear increased risk or reduce the level of our underwriting commitments.

As part of our overall risk and capacity management strategy, we purchase reinsurance for significant amounts of risk underwritten by our insurance company subsidiaries. Market conditions beyond our control determine the availability and cost of the reinsurance. We may be unable to maintain current reinsurance coverage or to obtain other reinsurance coverage in adequate amounts and at favorable rates. If we are unable to renew our expiring coverage or to obtain new reinsurance coverage, either our net exposure to risk would increase or, if we are unwilling to bear an increase in net risk exposures, we would need to reduce the amount of our underwritten risk.

We cannot guarantee that our reinsurers will pay in a timely fashion or at all, and, as a result, we could experience losses .

We transfer part of our risks to reinsurance companies in exchange for part of the premium we receive in connection with the risk. Although our reinsurance agreements make the reinsurer liable to us to the extent the risk is transferred, our liability to our policyholders remains our responsibility. Reinsurers may periodically dispute our demand for reimbursement from them based upon their interpretation of the terms of our agreements or may fail to pay us for financial or other reasons. If reinsurers refuse or fail to pay us or fail to pay on a timely basis, our financial results and/or cash flows would be adversely affected and could have a material effect on our results of operations in the period in which uncollectible amounts are identified.

At December 31, 2013 our Receivable from reinsurers on unpaid losses is $247.5 million and our Receivable from reinsurers on paid losses is $3.2 million . As of December 31, 2013 the estimated net amount due from four of our reinsurers exceeded $20 million, on an individual basis, with the largest estimated amount due from an individual reinsurer being $26.0 million . A table listing significant reinsurers is provided in Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis, as a part of the Liquidity section, under the caption "Reinsurance".

Our claims handling could result in a bad faith claim against us.

We have been, from time to time, sued for allegedly acting in bad faith during our handling of a claim. The damages claimed in actions for bad faith may include amounts owed by the insured in excess of the policy limits as well as consequential and punitive damages. Awards above policy limits are possible whenever a case is taken to trial. These actions have the potential to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in healthcare policy could have a material effect on our operations.

The Healthcare Reform Act was passed and signed into law in March 2010. While the primary provisions of the Healthcare Reform Act do not appear to directly affect our business, specific regulations to implement the law are still being written.

The Healthcare Reform Act is expected to have a significant impact on the practice of medicine in future years and could have unanticipated or indirect effects on our business or alter the risk and cost environments in which we and our insureds operate. These risks include: reduced operating margins that may cause physicians and hospitals to join in larger groupings which are more likely to utilize self-insured solutions for HCPL insurance products; use of electronic medical records may lead to additional medical malpractice litigation or increase the cost of litigation; patient dissatisfaction may increase due to greater strain on the patient-physician relationship; there may be an overall increase in healthcare costs which would increase loss costs for claims involving bodily injury; and additional health conditions may be identified as work-related which could increase the number of workers' compensation claims. Conversely, it is anticipated that there will be growth in the number of ancillary healthcare providers that will become customers for HCPL products. We are unable to predict with any certainty the effect that the Healthcare Reform Act or future related legislation will have on our insureds or our business.

Changes due to financial reform legislation could have a material effect on our operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act was passed and signed into law in July 2010. The provisions of the bill do not appear to materially affect our operations; however, the bill establishes new regulatory oversight of financial institutions and regulations to implement the Act remain in the process of development. As detailed regulations are developed to implement the provisions of the bill, there may be changes in the regulatory environment that affect the way we conduct our operations or the cost of regulatory compliance, or both. We are unable to predict with any certainty the effect that the Dodd-Frank Act will have on our business.

One of the federal government bodies created by the Dodd-Frank Act was the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) which, in December 2013, released a proposal on insurance modernization and improvement of the system of insurance regulation in the United States. Although the FIO is prohibited from directly regulating the business of insurance, it has authority to represent the United States in international insurance matters and has limited powered to preempt certain types of state insurance laws. The recent proposal advocates significantly greater federal involvement in insurance regulation and identifies necessary reforms by the states to preclude further consideration of direct federal regulation. While the proposal does not necessarily imply that the federal government will displace state regulation completely, it does recommend more of a hybrid approach to insurance regulation. We cannot predict whether the proposals will be adopted or what impact, if any, such proposals or, if enacted, such laws may have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The passage of tort reform or other legislation, and the subsequent review of such laws by the courts could have a material impact on our operations.

Tort reforms generally restrict the ability of a plaintiff to recover damages by, among other limitations, eliminating certain claims that may be heard in a court, limiting the amount or types of damages, changing statutes of limitation or the period of time to make a claim, and limiting venue or court selection. A number of states in which we do business, notably Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia, enacted tort reform legislation in the previous decade as a response to a rapid deterioration in loss trends.

Challenges to tort reform are underway in most states where tort reforms have been enacted. The statutes in Missouri were overturned in 2012; those in Georgia and Illinois were overturned in 2010. We cannot predict with any certainty how other state appellate courts will rule on these laws. While the effects of tort reform have been generally beneficial to our business in states where these laws have been enacted, there can be no assurance that such reforms will be ultimately upheld by the courts. Further, if tort reforms are effective, the business of providing professional liability insurance may become more attractive, thereby causing an increase in competition. In addition, the enactment of tort reforms could be accompanied by legislation or regulatory actions that may be detrimental to our business because of expected benefits which may or may not be realized. These expectations could result in regulatory or legislative action limiting the ability of professional liability insurers to maintain rates at adequate levels.

Coverage mandates or other expanded insurance requirements could also be imposed. States may also consider state-sponsored insurance entities that could remove our potential insureds from the private insurance market.

We continue to monitor developments on a state-by-state basis, and make business decisions accordingly.

Our performance is dependent on the business, economic, regulatory and legislative conditions of states where we have a significant amount of business.

Our top five states, Alabama, Ohio, Texas, Florida and Michigan, represented 43% of our gross premiums written for the year ended December 31, 2013 . Moreover, on a combined basis, Alabama, Ohio and Texas accounted for 30% , 32% , and 33% of our gross premiums written for the years ended December 31, 2013 , 2012 and 2011 , respectively. Additionally, although Eastern will not be a part of our consolidated results until January 1, 2014, a significant portion of Eastern's total gross premium written for the year ended December 31, 2013 was in the state of Pennsylvania. Unfavorable business, economic or regulatory conditions in any of these states could have a disproportionately greater effect on us than they would if we were less geographically concentrated.

We may be unable to identify future strategic acquisitions or expected benefits from completed and proposed acquisitions may not be achieved or may be delayed longer than expected.

Our corporate strategy anticipates growth through the acquisition of other companies or books of business. However, such expansion is opportunistic and sporadic, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to identify strategic acquisition targets in the future. Additionally, if we are able to identify a strategic target for acquisition, state insurance regulation concerning change or acquisition of control could delay or prevent us from growing through acquisitions. State insurance regulatory codes provide that the acquisition of “control” of a domestic insurer or of any person that directly or indirectly controls a domestic insurer cannot be consummated without the prior approval of the domiciliary insurance regulator. There is no assurance that we will receive such approval from the respective insurance regulator or that such approvals will not be conditioned in a manner that materially and adversely affects the aggregate economic value and business benefits expected to be obtained and cause us to not complete the acquisition.

The Company performs thorough due diligence before agreeing to a merger or acquisition, however there is no guarantee that the procedures we perform will adequately identify all potential weaknesses or liabilities of the target company or potential risks to the consolidated entity.

There is also no guarantee that our recent acquisitions of Medmarc and Eastern, or acquisitions or businesses acquired in the future will be successfully integrated. Ineffective integration of our businesses and processes may result in substantial costs or delays and adversely affect our ability to compete. The process of integrating an acquired company or business can be complex and costly, and may create unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures. Potential problems that may arise include, among other reasons, business disruption, loss of customers and employees, the ineffective integration of underwriting, claims handling and actuarial practices, the increase in the inherent uncertainty of reserve estimates for a period of time until stable trends reestablish themselves within the combined organization, diversion of management time and resources to acquisition integration challenges, the cultural challenges associated with integrating employees, increased operating costs, assumption of greater than expected liabilities, or inability to achieve cost savings. Furthermore, claims may be asserted by either the policyholders or shareholders of any acquired entity related to payments or other issues associated with the acquisition and merger into the consolidated entity. Such claims may prove costly or difficult to resolve or may have unanticipated consequences.

If we are unable to maintain favorable financial strength ratings, it may be more difficult for us to write new business or renew our existing business.

Independent rating agencies assess and rate the claims-paying ability and the financial strength of insurers based upon criteria established by the agencies. Periodically the rating agencies evaluate us to confirm that we continue to meet the criteria of previously assigned ratings. The financial strength ratings assigned by rating agencies to insurance companies represent independent opinions of financial strength and ability to meet policyholder and debt obligations and are not directed toward the protection of equity investors.

Our principal operating subsidiaries hold favorable claims paying ratings with A.M. Best, Fitch and Moody’s. Claims paying ratings are used by agents and customers as an important means of assessing the financial strength and quality of insurers. If our financial position deteriorates or the rating agencies significantly change the rating criteria that are used to determine ratings, we may not maintain our favorable financial strength ratings from the rating agencies. A downgrade or involuntary withdrawal of any such rating could limit or prevent us from writing desirable business.

The following table, which includes both our investment in Syndicate 1729 as of January 1, 2014 and subsidiaries acquired January 1, 2014, presents the claims paying ratings of our core insurance subsidiaries as of February 12, 2014 .

Four rating agencies evaluate and rate our ability to service current debt and potential debt. These financial strength ratings reflect each agency’s independent evaluation of our ability to meet our obligation to holders of our debt, if any. While these ratings may be of greater interest to investors than our claims paying ratings, these are not ratings of our equity securities nor a recommendation to buy, hold or sell our equity securities.

Our business could be adversely affected by the loss or consolidation of independent agents, agencies, or brokers or brokerage firms.

We depend in part on the services of independent agents and brokers in the marketing of our insurance products. We face competition from other insurance companies for their services and allegiance. These agents and brokers may choose to direct business to competing insurance companies.

Our success is dependent upon our ability to effectively design and execute our business strategy and to adequately and appropriately serve our customers.

The Company depends upon the skill and work product of our officers and employees in executing our business strategy. While management and the Board of Directors ("the Board" or "our Board") monitor the strategic direction of the Company, strategic changes could be made that are not supportable by our capital base. In addition, our business could potentially be impacted if we are unable to align our strategy with the expectations of our stakeholders. The operations of the Company are also heavily dependent upon the delivery of superior customer service across a broad customer base, by which negative feedback from agents, insureds or internal staff could result in a loss of revenue for the Company.

Our business could be affected by the loss of one or more of our senior executives.

We are heavily dependent upon our senior management, and the loss of services of our senior executives could adversely affect our business. Our success has been, and will continue to be, dependent on our ability to retain the services of existing key employees and to attract and retain additional qualified personnel in the future. The loss of the services of key employees or senior managers, or the inability to identify, hire and retain other highly qualified personnel in the future, could adversely affect the quality and profitability of our business operations.

Our Board regularly reviews succession planning relating to our Chief Executive Officer as well as other senior officers. Mr. Starnes, our Chief Executive Officer and President, has indicated to the Board that he has no immediate plans for retirement.

Provisions in our charter documents, Delaware law and state insurance law may impede attempts to replace or remove management or may impede a takeover, which could adversely affect the value of our common stock.

Our certificate of incorporation, bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that may have the effect of inhibiting a non-negotiated merger or other business combination. We currently have no preferred stock outstanding, and no present intention to issue any shares of preferred stock. In addition, our Corporate Governance Principles provide that the Board, subject to its fiduciary duties, will not issue any series of preferred stock for any defense or anti-takeover purpose, for the purpose of implementing any stockholders rights plan, or with features intended to make any acquisition more difficult or costly without obtaining stockholder approval. However, because the rights and preferences of any series of preferred stock may be set by the Board in its sole discretion, the rights and preferences of any such preferred stock may be superior to those of our common stock and thus may adversely affect the rights of the holders of common stock.

The voting structure of common stock and other provisions of our certificate of incorporation are intended to encourage a person interested in acquiring us to negotiate with, and to obtain the approval of, the Board in connection with a transaction. However, certain of these provisions may discourage our future acquisition, including an acquisition in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. As a result, stockholders who might desire to participate in such a transaction may not have the opportunity to do so.

In addition, state insurance laws provide that no person or entity may directly or indirectly acquire control of an insurance company unless that person or entity has received approval from the insurance regulator. An acquisition of control of ProAssurance would be presumed if any person or entity acquires 10% (5% in Alabama) or more of our outstanding common stock, unless the applicable insurance regulator determines otherwise. These provisions apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by stockholders.

We are a holding company and are dependent on dividends and other payments from our operating subsidiaries, which are subject to dividend restrictions.

We are a holding company whose principal source of funds is cash dividends and other permitted payments from operating subsidiaries. If our subsidiaries are unable to make payments to us, or are able to pay only limited amounts, we may be unable to make payments on our indebtedness, meet other holding company financial obligations, or pay dividends to shareholders. The payment of dividends by these operating subsidiaries is subject to restrictions set forth in the insurance laws and regulations of their respective states of domicile, as discussed under the caption "Insurance Regulatory Matters".

Regulatory requirements or changes to regulatory requirements could have a material effect on our operations.

Our insurance businesses are subject to extensive regulation by state insurance authorities in each state in which they operate. Regulation is intended for the benefit of policyholders rather than shareholders. In addition to the amount of dividends and other payments that can be made to a holding company by insurance subsidiaries, these regulatory authorities have broad administrative and supervisory power relating to:

These regulations may impede or impose burdensome conditions on rate changes or other actions that we may desire to take in order to enhance our results of operations. In addition, we may incur significant costs in the course of complying with regulatory requirements. Most states also regulate insurance holding companies like us in a variety of matters such as acquisitions, changes of control and the terms of affiliated transactions.

Also, certain states sponsor insurance entities which affect the amount and type of liability coverages purchased in the sponsoring state. Changes to the number of state sponsored entities of this type could result in a large number of insureds changing the amount and type of coverage purchased from private insurance entities such as ProAssurance.

As a result of our acquisition of Eastern, we own a subsidiary domiciled in the Cayman Islands and subject to the laws of the Cayman Islands and regulations promulgated by the CIMA. Failure to comply with these laws, regulations and requirements could result in consequences ranging from a regulatory examination to a regulatory takeover of our Cayman subsidiary, which could potentially impact profitability of the workers' compensation alternative market solutions offered through this subsidiary.

Syndicate 1729 is regulated in the United Kingdom by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. All Lloyd's syndicates must also comply with the bylaws and regulations established by the Council of Lloyd's. Failure to comply with bylaws and regulations could affect our ability to underwrite as a Lloyd's Syndicate in the future and therefore affect our profitability. Changes in bylaws and regulations could also affect the profitability of the operations.

The European Union's executive body, the European Commission, is implementing new capital adequacy and risk management regulations called Solvency II that would apply to businesses within the European Union. Solvency II is currently required to be implemented on January 1, 2016, and certain interim transition measures are required for 2014 and 2015. We are unable to predict with any certainty the effect that such regulations will have on the profitability of Lloyd's or Syndicate 1729.

As a member of the Lloyd's market and a capital provider to Lloyd's Syndicate 1729 we are subject to certain risks which could materially and adversely affect us.

As a member of the Lloyd's market we are obligated to contribute to the Lloyd's Central Fund and to pay levies to Lloyd's as well as our ongoing exposure to levies and charges in order to underwrite at Lloyd's. Whenever a member of Lloyd's is unable to pay its policyholder obligations, such obligations may be payable by the Lloyd's Central Fund. If Lloyd's determines that the Central Fund needs to be increased, it has the power to assess premiums levies on current Lloyd's members up to 3% of a member's underwriting capacity in any one year. We do not believe that any assessment is likely in the foreseeable future and have not provided an allowance for such an assessment. However, based on our 2014 estimated underwriting capacity at Lloyd's of £43.2 million ( $71.5 million ), the December 31, 2013 exchange rate of 1.6557 dollars per GBP and assuming the maximum 3% assessment, we could be assessed up to $2.1 million in 2014.

As a participant in Lloyd's of London, Syndicate 1729 is subject to certain risks and uncertainties, including the following:

The guaranty fund assessments that we are required to pay to state guaranty associations may increase or our participation in mandatory risk retention pools could be expanded and our results of operations and financial condition could suffer as a result.

Each state in which we operate has separate insurance guaranty fund laws requiring admitted property and casualty insurance companies doing business within their respective jurisdictions to be members of their guaranty associations. These associations are organized to pay covered claims (as defined and limited by the various guaranty association statutes) under insurance policies issued by insurance companies that have become insolvent. Most guaranty association laws enable the associations to make assessments against member insurers to obtain funds to pay covered claims after a member insurer becomes insolvent. These associations levy assessments (up to prescribed limits) on all member insurers in a particular state on the basis of the proportionate share of the premiums written by member insurers in the covered lines of business in that state. Maximum assessments generally vary between 1% and 2% of annual premiums written by a member in that state. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through surcharges on policyholders or through full or partial premium tax offsets, while other states permit recovery of assessments through the rate filing process. In 2013 and 2012 , net guaranty fund assessments totaled less than $0.1 million and approximately $0.3 million , respectively. Our practice is to accrue for insurance insolvencies when notified of assessments. We are not able to reasonably estimate assessments or develop a meaningful range of possible assessments prior to notice because the guaranty funds do not provide sufficient information for development of such estimates or ranges.

Certain states have established risk pooling mechanisms that offer insurance coverage to individuals or entities who are otherwise unable to purchase coverage from private insurers. Authorized property and casualty insurers in these states are generally required to share in the underwriting results of these pooled risks, which are typically adverse. Should our mandatory participation in such pools be increased or if the assessments from such pools increased, our results of operations and financial condition would be negatively affected, although that was not the case in 2013, 2012 or 2011.

Our investment results will fluctuate as interest rates change.

Our investment portfolio is primarily comprised of interest-earning assets, marked to market each period. Thus, prevailing economic conditions, particularly changes in market interest rates, may significantly affect our results of operations. Significant movements in interest rates potentially expose us to lower yields or lower asset values. Changes in market interest rate levels generally affect our net income to the extent that reinvestment yields are different than the yields on maturing securities. Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of our interest-earning assets, which are principally comprised of fixed and adjustable-rate investment securities. Generally, the values of fixed-rate investment securities fluctuate inversely with changes in interest rates. Interest rate fluctuations could adversely affect our stockholders’ equity, income and/or cash flows.

Our investments are subject to credit, prepayment risk and other risks.

A significant portion of our total assets ( $3.9 billion or 77% ) at December 31, 2013 are financial instruments whose value can be significantly affected by economic and market factors beyond our control including, among others, the unemployment rate, the strength of the domestic housing market, the price of oil, changes in interest rates and spreads, consumer confidence, investor confidence regarding the economic prospects of the entities in which we invest, corrective or remedial actions taken by the entities in which we invest, including mergers, spin-offs and bankruptcy filings, the actions of the U.S. government, and global perceptions regarding the stability of the U.S. economy. Adverse economic and market conditions could cause investment losses or other-than-temporary impairments of our securities, which could affect our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

At December 31, 2013 approximately 10% of our investment portfolio is invested in mortgage and asset-backed securities. We utilize ratings determined by Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (NRSROs) (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch) as an element of our evaluation of the credit worthiness of our securities. The ratings are subject to error by the agencies; therefore, we may be subject to additional credit exposure should the rating be misstated.

Our asset-backed securities are also subject to prepayment risk. A prepayment is the unscheduled return of principal. When rates decline, the propensity for refinancing may increase and the period of time we hold our asset-backed securities may shorten due to prepayments. Prepayments may cause us to reinvest cash proceeds at lower yields than the retired security. Conversely, as rates increase, and motivations for prepayments lessen, the period of time we hold our asset-backed securities may lengthen, causing us to not reinvest cash flows at the higher available yields.

At December 31, 2013 the fair value of our state/municipal portfolio was $1.2 billion (amortized cost basis of $1.1 billion ). While our state/municipal portfolio had a high credit rating ( AA on average) which indicates a strong ability to pay, there is no assurance that there will not be a credit related event which would cause fair values to decline. The economic downturn in preceding years lessened tax receipts and other revenues in many states and their municipalities and the frequency of credit downgrades of these entities has increased.

Our tax credit partnership interests are subject to risks related to the potential forfeiture of the tax credits and all or a portion of the previously claimed tax credits. Loss of the tax credits might occur if the property owner fails to meet the specified requirements of planning, constructing and operating the property or if the property fails to generate the projected tax credits. At December 31, 2013 the carrying value of our tax credit partnership interests was approximately $142.2 million .

U.S. Government debt rating.

U.S Government securities are no longer rated with the highest possible rating by one of the major rating agencies, and there is potential for a further downgrade or for additional rating agencies to also downgrade U. S. Government securities. The rating agencies have also indicated that debt instruments of issuers dependent upon federal support and distributions, including state and local municipalities, may also be downgraded, but this has not yet occurred to any widespread extent except with respect to U.S. Agency debt or U.S. Agency guaranteed debt. If ratings downgrades occur, the average credit rating of our investment portfolio will be reduced. Due to the unpredictable nature of this situation, we are unable to provide a reliable estimate regarding the extent to which our portfolio might be affected. As of December 31, 2013 debt securities represented 79% of our total investments and included U.S. Government debt, U.S. Agency debt, and U.S. Agency guaranteed debt having a combined fair value of $462 million and state and municipal securities having a combined fair value of $1.2 billion .

In a period of market illiquidity and instability, the fair values of our investments are more difficult to assess and our assessments may prove to be greater or less than amounts received in actual transactions.

In accordance with applicable GAAP, we value 94% of our investments at fair value and the remaining 6% at cost, equity, or cash surrender value. See Notes 1, 3 and 4 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

We determine the fair value of our investments using quoted exchange or over-the-counter (OTC) prices, when available. At December 31, 2013 , we valued approximately 13% of our investments in this manner. When exchange or OTC quotes are not available, we estimate fair values based on broker dealer quotes and various other valuation methodologies, which may require us to choose among various input assumptions and which requires us to utilize judgment. At December 31, 2013 approximately 81% of our investments were valued in this manner. When markets exhibit significant volatility, there is more risk that we may utilize a quoted market price, broker dealer quote, valuation technique or input assumption that results in a fair value estimate that is either over or understated as compared to actual amounts received upon disposition or maturity of the security.

Our Board may decide that our financial condition does not allow the continued payment of a quarterly cash dividend, or requires that we reduce the amount of our quarterly cash dividend.

Our Board approved a cash dividend policy in September 2011, most recently paid at $0.30 per share for the three months ended December 31, 2013 . However, any decision to pay future cash dividends is subject to the Board’s final determination after a comprehensive review of the Company’s financial performance, future expectations and other factors deemed relevant by the Board.

Our ability to issue additional debt or letters of credit or other types of indebtedness on terms consistent with current debt is subject to market conditions, economic conditions at the time of proposed issuance, and the results of ratings reviews. Also, our current credit agreement requires that our debt to capital ratio be 0.35 to 1.0 or less, and the issuance of debt by one of our insurance subsidiaries requires regulatory approval, both of which may limit or prohibit the issuance of additional debt.

D uring 2013 we were able to issue $250 million of unsecured Senior Notes Payable due in 2023 at a 5.3% interest rate, and we obtained a secured letter of credit for £41.9 million (approximately $69.3 million at December 31, 2013 at a rate of prime plus 400 basis points. There is no guarantee that additional debt could be issued on similar terms in the future as rates available to us may change due to changes in the economic climate or shifts in the yield curve may occur or an increase in our level of debt may result in rating agencies lowering our debt rating. Also, our insurance subsidiaries must obtain regulatory approval before incurring additional debt. A further restriction is that our credit facility agreement requires that our consolidated debt to capital ratio ( 0.10 to 1.0 at December 31, 2013 ) be 0.35 to 1.0 or less.

Resolution of uncertain tax matters and changes in tax laws or taxing authority interpretations of tax laws could result in actual tax benefits or deductions that are different than we have estimated, both with regard to amounts recognized and the timing of recognition. Such differences could affect our results of operations or cash flows.

Our provision for income taxes, our recorded tax liabilities and net deferred tax assets, including any valuation allowances, are recorded based on estimates. These estimates require us to make significant judgments regarding a number of factors, including, among others, the applicability of various federal and state laws, the interpretations given to those tax laws by taxing authorities, courts and ProAssurance, the timing of future income and deductions, and our expected levels and sources of future taxable income. We believe our tax positions are supportable under tax laws and that our estimates are prepared in accordance with GAAP. Additionally, from time to time there are changes to tax laws and interpretations of tax laws which could change our estimates of the amount of tax benefits or deductions expected to be available to us in future periods. In either case, changes to our prior estimates would be reflected in the period changed and could have a material effect on our effective tax rate, financial position, results of operations and cash flow. The reinsurance portion of our workers' compensation business is domiciled in the Cayman Islands. Changes in Cayman Island tax laws could result in the loss of profitability of that business.

We are subject to U.S. federal and various state income taxes. We are periodically under routine examination by various federal, state and local authorities regarding income tax matters and our tax positions could be successfully challenged; the costs of defending our tax positions could be considerable. Our estimate of our potential liability for known uncertain tax positions is reflected in our financial statements and considers the Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) received in 2012, as discussed in the following paragraph. As of December 31, 2013 we had a federal income tax receivable of approximately $27 million . We also had a liability for unrecognized current tax benefits of $4.8 million , and we had net deferred tax assets of approximately $1.8 million . Unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2013 , if recognized, would not affect the effective tax rate but would accelerate the payment of tax.

In December 2012 we received a Notice of Proposed Adjustment (NOPA) from the IRS which disallows a substantial portion of the loss and loss adjustment expense deductions taken for the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years and would thereby increase our current tax liability by approximately $130 million . In January 2013 we submitted a comprehensive written protest of the NOPA to the IRS Office of Appeals regarding certain issues within the NOPA, all of which related to the timing of deductions. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we reached a tentative settlement of all contested Federal income tax issues for the related

tax years which will result in no additional tax liability for us. Other non-contested issues addressed by the NOPA are expected to result in a net federal income tax refund, exclusive of statutory interest, of approximately $9.6 million . We believe that our tentative terms of settlement with the IRS will be documented and finalized during 2014. In January 2013 we made a $20.6 million protective tax payment to the IRS in order to reduce potential interest assessments. We expect the protective payment to also be refunded once the settlement is finalized.

New or changes in existing accounting standards, practices and/or policies, as well as subjective assumptions, estimates and judgments by management related to complex accounting matters could significantly affect our financial results or our ability to maintain investor confidence and shareholder value.

U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and related accounting pronouncements, implementation guidelines and interpretations with regard to a wide range of matters that are relevant to our business, such as revenue recognition, estimation of losses, determination of fair value, asset impairment (particularly investment securities and goodwill) and tax matters, are highly complex and involve many subjective assumptions, estimates and judgments. Changes in these rules or their interpretation or changes in underlying assumptions, estimates, or judgments could significantly change our reported or expected financial performance or financial condition. See Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a description of our significant accounting policies.

ProAssurance is primarily a holding company of insurance subsidiaries which are required to comply with statutory accounting principles (SAP). SAP and its components are subject to review by the NAIC and state insurance departments. The NAIC Accounting Practices and Procedures Manual provides that a state insurance department may allow insurance companies that are domiciled in that state to depart from SAP by granting them permitted non-SAP accounting practices. This permission may permit a competitor or competitors to use a more favorable accounting policy.

It is uncertain whether or how SAP might be revised or whether any revisions will have a positive or negative effect. It is also uncertain whether any changes to SAP or its components or any permitted non-SAP accounting practices granted to our competitors will negatively affect our financial results or operations. See the Insurance Regulatory Matters section in Item 1 for the full discussion on regulatory matters.

Our interpretation, integration and/or compliance with new or changes to existing pronouncements by GAAP or SAP could materially impact us as a publicly traded company as it relates to investor confidence and shareholder value.

We are subject to numerous NYSE and SEC regulations including insider trading regulations, Regulation FD, and regulations requiring timely and accurate reporting of our operating results as well as certain events and transactions. Non-compliance with these regulations could subject us to enforcement actions by the NYSE or the SEC, and could affect the value of our shares and our ability to raise additional capital.

The Company carefully adheres to NYSE and SEC requirements as the loss of trading privileges on the NYSE or an SEC enforcement action could have a significant financial impact on the Company. Failure to comply with various SEC reporting and record keeping requirements could result in a decline in the value of our stock or a decline in investor confidence which could directly impact our ability to efficiently raise capital. Failure to adhere to NYSE requirements could result in fines, trading restriction or delisting.

The operations of the Company are heavily reliant upon the Company's reputation as an ethical business organization providing needed services to its customers.

The Company's positive reputation is critical to its role as an insurance provider and as a publicly traded company. The Board adopted a Code of Ethics and Conduct and management is heavily focused on the integrity of our employees and third party suppliers, agents or brokers. Illegal, unethical or fraudulent activities perpetrated by an employee or one of our third party agencies or brokers for personal gain could expose the Company to a potential financial loss.

A natural disaster or pandemic event, or closely related series of events, could cause loss of lives or a substantial loss of property or operational ability at one or more of the Company's facilities.

The Company's disaster preparedness encompasses our Business Continuity Plan, Disaster Recovery Plan, Operations Plan, and Pandemic Response Plan. Our disaster preparedness is focused on maintaining the continuity of the Company's data processing and telephone capabilities as well as the use of alternate and temporary facilities in the event of a natural disaster or medical event. The Company's plans are reviewed during the insurance department examinations of the statutory insurance companies. While the Company has plans in place to respond to both short- and long-term disaster scenarios, the loss of certain key operating facilities or data processing capabilities could have a significant impact on Company operations.

The operations of the Company are dependent upon the availability, integrity and security of our internal technology infrastructure and that of certain third parties. Any significant disruption of these infrastructures could result in unauthorized access to Company data or reduce our ability to conduct business effectively, or both.

The Company is dependent upon its technology infrastructure and that of certain third parties to operate and report financial and other Company information accurately and timely. The Company has focused resources on securing and preserving the integrity of our data processing systems and related data. Additionally, the Company evaluates the integrity and security of the technology infrastructure of third parties that process or store data that the Company considers to be significant. However, there is no guarantee that measures taken to date will completely prevent unauthorized access to our technological infrastructure or that of our third party service providers or our data. Should such unauthorized access occur, our normal operations could be disrupted or unauthorized internal or external knowledge or misuse of confidential Company data could occur, all of which could be harmful to the Company from both a financial and reputational perspective.