Contingent Liabilities We are a defendant in a number of litigation matters that have arisen in the normal course of business, including the matters discussed below. Further, state insurance regulatory authorities and other federal and state authorities regularly make inquiries and conduct investigations concerning our compliance with applicable insurance and other laws and regulations. Given the complexity and scope of our litigation and regulatory matters, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending investigations or legal proceedings or provide reasonable estimates of potential losses, except if noted in connection with specific matters. In some of these matters, no specified amount is sought. In others, very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are asserted. There is a wide variation of pleading practice permitted in the United States courts with respect to requests for monetary damages, including some courts in which no specified amount is required and others which allow the plaintiff to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that court. Further, some jurisdictions permit plaintiffs to allege damages well in excess of reasonably possible verdicts. Based on our extensive experience and that of others in the industry with respect to litigating or resolving claims through settlement over an extended period of time, we believe that the monetary damages asserted in a lawsuit or claim bear little relation to the merits of the case, or the likely disposition value. Therefore, the specific monetary relief sought is not stated. Unless indicated otherwise in the descriptions below, reserves have not been established for litigation and contingencies. An estimated loss is accrued when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Claims Handling Matters We and our insurance subsidiaries, in the ordinary course of our business, are engaged in claim litigation where disputes arise as a result of a denial or termination of benefits. Most typically these lawsuits are filed on behalf of a single claimant or policyholder, and in some of these individual actions punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. For our general claim litigation, we maintain reserves based on experience to satisfy judgments and settlements in the normal course. We expect that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to general claim litigation, after consideration of the reserves maintained, will not be material to our consolidated financial condition. Nevertheless, given the inherent unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain claim litigation involving punitive damages could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations in a period, depending on the results of operations for the particular period. From time to time class action allegations are pursued where the claimant or policyholder purports to represent a larger number of individuals who are similarly situated. Since each insurance claim is evaluated based on its own merits, there is rarely a single act or series of actions which can properly be addressed by a class action. Nevertheless, we monitor these cases closely and defend ourselves appropriately where these allegations are made. Miscellaneous Matters Similar to other insurers, we were the subject of an examination by a third party acting on behalf of a number of state treasurers concerning our compliance with the unclaimed property laws of the participating states. We cooperated fully with this examination and in the fourth quarter of 2017, we started the process to reach a Global Resolution Agreement with the third party regarding settlement of the examination, which we finalized in January of 2018. Under the terms of the agreement, the third party acting on behalf of the signatory states compared insured data to the Social Security Administration's Death Master File to identify deceased insureds and contract holders where a valid claim has not been made. During the fourth quarter of 2017, we established reserves which reflect our estimate of the liability expected to be paid as we execute on the terms of the settlement. We also are cooperating with a Delaware Market Conduct examination involving the same issue, which is currently inactive. The legal and regulatory environment around unclaimed death benefits continues to evolve. It is possible that the current settlement and/or similar investigations by other state jurisdictions may result in payments to beneficiaries, the payment of abandoned funds under state law, and/or administrative penalties, the total of which may be in excess of the reserves established. Securities Class Actions: Three alleged securities class action lawsuits have been filed against Unum Group and individual defendants as follows:  On June 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit entitled Cynthia Pittman v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded securities between January 31, 2018 and May 2, 2018. The plaintiff alleges the Company caused its shares to trade at artificially high levels by failing to disclose information about the rate of long-term care policy terminations and long-term care claim incidence resulting in misleading statements about capital management plans and long-term care reserves. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously defend the litigation.  On July 13, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit entitled Scott Cunningham v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The allegations, class period, and damages claimed mirror those in the Pittman matter. The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously defend the litigation.  On July 25, 2018, an alleged securities class action lawsuit entitled City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System v. Unum Group, Richard McKenney, John McGarry, Steve Zabel, and Daniel Waxenberg was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The plaintiff seeks to represent purchasers of Unum Group publicly traded securities between October 27, 2016 and May 1, 2018. The allegations and damages claimed mirror those in the Pittman matter. The Company strongly denies these allegations and will vigorously defend the litigation. On November 9, 2018, the court consolidated the Pittman , Cunningham , and City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System cases into one matter entitled In re Unum Group Securities Litigation , appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs counsel, and directed the plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint. On January 15, 2019, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial as well as costs, expenses, and attorneys fees. On March 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 4, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the motion. On June 1, 2020, the court granted the Companys motion and dismissed the cases with prejudice. On June 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is in a very preliminary stage and the outcome is uncertain. We believe the appeal and the underlying claims lack merit and reserves have not been established for these matters as we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. However, an adverse outcome in one or more of these actions could, depending on the nature, scope, and amount of any ruling, materially adversely affect our consolidated results of operations in a period.