CNA FINANCIAL CORP

The level of reserves we maintain represents our best estimate, as of a particular point in time, of what the ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost based on our assessment of facts and circumstances known at that time. Reserves are not an exact calculation of liability but instead are complex estimates that we derive, generally utilizing a variety of actuarial reserve estimation techniques, from numerous assumptions and expectations about future events, both internal and external, many of which are highly uncertain. As noted below, we review our reserves for each segment of our business periodically, and any such review could result in the need to increase reserves in amounts which could be material and could adversely affect our results of operations, equity, business and insurer financial strength and corporate debt ratings. Further information on reserves is provided in Note E and F to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Property and Casualty Claim and Claim Adjustment Expense Reserves

We maintain loss reserves to cover our estimated ultimate unpaid liability for claim and claim adjustment expenses, including the estimated cost of the claims adjudication process, for claims that have been reported but not yet settled (case reserves) and claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNR). IBNR includes a provision for development on known cases as well as a provision for late reported incurred claims. Claim and claim adjustment expense reserves are reflected as liabilities and are included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets under the heading “Insurance Reserves.” Adjustments to prior year reserve estimates, if necessary, are reflected in results of operations in the period that the need for such adjustments is determined. The carried case and IBNR reserves as of each balance sheet date are provided in the Segment Results section of this MD&A and in Note E to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

As discussed in the Risk Factors discussion within Item 1A, there is a risk that our recorded reserves are insufficient to cover our estimated ultimate unpaid liability for claims and claim adjustment expenses. Unforeseen emerging or potential claims and coverage issues are also difficult to predict and could materially adversely affect the adequacy of our claim and claim adjustment expense reserves and could lead to future reserve increases.

In addition, our property and casualty insurance subsidiaries also have actual and potential exposures related to A&EP claims, which could result in material losses. To mitigate the risks posed by our exposure to A&EP claims and claim adjustment expenses, we completed a transaction with NICO under which substantially all of our legacy A&EP liabilities were ceded to NICO effective January 1, 2010. See Note E to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 for further discussion about the transaction with NICO, its impact on our results of operations and the deferred retroactive reinsurance gains and the amount of remaining reinsurance limit.

Establishing Property & Casualty Reserve Estimates

In developing claim and claim adjustment expense reserve estimates, our actuaries perform detailed reserve analyses that are staggered throughout the year. The data is organized at a reserve group level. A reserve group typically can be a line of business covering a subset of insureds such as commercial automobile liability for small or middle market customers or it can be a particular type of claim such as construction defect. Every reserve group is reviewed at least once during the year, but most are reviewed more frequently. The analyses generally review losses gross of ceded reinsurance and apply the ceded reinsurance terms to the gross estimates to establish estimates net of reinsurance. In addition to the detailed analyses, we review actual loss emergence for all products each quarter.

Most of our business can be characterized as long-tail. For long-tail business, it will generally be several years between the time the business is written and the time when all claims are settled. Our long-tail exposures include commercial automobile liability, workers' compensation, general liability, medical professional liability, other professional liability and management liability coverages, assumed reinsurance run-off and products liability. Short-tail exposures include property, commercial automobile physical damage, marine, surety and warranty. Specialty, Commercial and International contain both long-tail and short-tail exposures. Corporate & Other contains run-off long-tail exposures.

Various methods are used to project ultimate losses for both long-tail and short-tail exposures.

The paid development method estimates ultimate losses by reviewing paid loss patterns and applying them to accident or policy years with further expected changes in paid losses. Selection of the paid loss pattern may require consideration of several factors, including the impact of economic, social and medical inflation on claim costs, the rate at which claims professionals make claim payments and close claims, the impact of judicial decisions, the impact of underwriting changes, the impact of large claim payments and other factors. Claim cost inflation itself may require evaluation of changes in the cost of repairing or replacing property, changes in the cost of medical care, changes in the cost of wage replacement, judicial decisions, legislative changes and other factors. Because this method assumes that losses are paid at a consistent rate, changes in any of these factors can affect the results. Since the method does not rely on case reserves, it is not directly influenced by changes in their adequacy.

For many reserve groups, paid loss data for recent periods may be too immature or erratic for accurate predictions. This situation often exists for long-tail exposures. In addition, changes in the factors described above may result in inconsistent payment patterns. Finally, estimating the paid loss pattern subsequent to the most mature point available in the data analyzed often involves considerable uncertainty for long-tail products such as workers' compensation.

The incurred development method is similar to the paid development method, but it uses case incurred losses instead of paid losses. Since the method uses more data (case reserves in addition to paid losses) than the paid development method, the incurred development patterns may be less variable than paid patterns. However, selection of the incurred loss pattern typically requires analysis of all of the same factors described above. In addition, the inclusion of case reserves can lead to distortions if changes in case reserving practices have taken place, and the use of case incurred losses may not eliminate the issues associated with estimating the incurred loss pattern subsequent to the most mature point available.

The loss ratio method multiplies earned premiums by an expected loss ratio to produce ultimate loss estimates for each accident or policy year. This method may be useful for immature accident or policy periods or if loss development patterns are inconsistent, losses emerge very slowly or there is relatively little loss history from which to estimate future losses. The selection of the expected loss ratio typically requires analysis of loss ratios from earlier accident or policy years or pricing studies and analysis of inflationary trends, frequency trends, rate changes, underwriting changes and other applicable factors.

The Bornhuetter-Ferguson method using paid loss is a combination of the paid development method and the loss ratio method. This method normally determines expected loss ratios similar to the approach used to estimate the expected loss ratio for the loss ratio method and typically requires analysis of the same factors described above. This method assumes that future losses will develop at the expected loss ratio level. The percent of paid loss to ultimate loss implied from the paid development method is used to determine what percentage of ultimate loss is yet to be paid. The use of the pattern from the paid development method typically requires consideration of the same factors listed in the description of the paid development method. The estimate of losses yet to be paid is added to current paid losses to estimate the ultimate loss for each year. For long-tail lines, this method will react very slowly if actual ultimate loss ratios are different from expectations due to changes not accounted for by the expected loss ratio calculation.

The Bornhuetter-Ferguson method using incurred loss is similar to the Bornhuetter-Ferguson method using paid loss except that it uses case incurred losses. The use of case incurred losses instead of paid losses can result in development patterns that are less variable than paid patterns. However, the inclusion of case reserves can lead to distortions if changes in case reserving have taken place, and the method typically requires analysis of the same factors that need to be reviewed for the loss ratio and incurred development methods.

The frequency times severity method multiplies a projected number of ultimate claims by an estimated ultimate average loss for each accident or policy year to produce ultimate loss estimates. Since projections of the ultimate number of claims are often less variable than projections of ultimate loss, this method can provide more reliable results for reserve groups where loss development patterns are inconsistent or too variable to be relied on exclusively. In addition, this method can more directly account for changes in coverage that affect the number and size of claims. However, this method can be difficult to apply to situations where very large claims or a substantial number of unusual claims result in volatile average claim sizes. Projecting the ultimate number of claims may require analysis of several factors, including the rate at which policyholders report claims to us, the impact of judicial decisions, the impact of underwriting changes and other factors. Estimating the ultimate average loss may require analysis of the impact of large losses and claim cost trends based on changes in the cost of repairing or replacing property, changes in the cost of medical care, changes in the cost of wage replacement, judicial decisions, legislative changes and other factors.

Stochastic modeling produces a range of possible outcomes based on varying assumptions related to the particular reserve group being modeled. For some reserve groups, we use models which rely on historical development patterns at an aggregate level, while other reserve groups are modeled using individual claim variability assumptions supplied by the claims department. In either case, multiple simulations using varying assumptions are run and the results are analyzed to produce a range of potential outcomes. The results will typically include a mean and percentiles of the possible reserve distribution which aid in the selection of a point estimate.

For many exposures, especially those that can be considered long-tail, a particular accident or policy year may not have a sufficient volume of paid losses to produce a statistically reliable estimate of ultimate losses. In such a case, our actuaries typically assign more weight to the incurred development method than to the paid development method. As claims continue to settle and the volume of paid loss increases, the actuaries may assign additional weight to the paid development method. For most of our products, even the incurred losses for accident or policy years that are early in the claim settlement process will not be of sufficient volume to produce a reliable estimate of ultimate losses. In these cases, we may not assign much, if any, weight to the paid and incurred development methods. We may use the loss ratio, Bornhuetter-Ferguson and/or frequency times severity methods. For short-tail exposures, the paid and incurred development methods can often be relied on sooner, primarily because our history includes a sufficient number of years to cover the entire period over which paid and incurred losses are expected to change. However, we may also use the loss ratio, Bornhuetter-Ferguson and/or frequency times severity methods for short-tail exposures.

For other more complex reserve groups where the above methods may not produce reliable indications, we use additional methods tailored to the characteristics of the specific situation.

Periodic Reserve Reviews

The reserve analyses performed by our actuaries result in point estimates. Each quarter, the results of the detailed reserve reviews are summarized and discussed with senior management to determine the best estimate of reserves. Senior management considers many factors in making this decision. Our recorded reserves reflect our best estimate as of a particular point in time based upon known facts and circumstances, consideration of the factors cited above and our judgment. The carried reserve differs from the actuarial point estimate as discussed further below.

Currently, our recorded reserves are modestly higher than the actuarial point estimate. For Commercial, Specialty and International, the difference between our reserves and the actuarial point estimate is primarily driven by uncertainty with respect to immature accident years, claim cost inflation, changes in claims handling, changes to the tort environment which may adversely affect claim costs and the effects from the economy. For Corporate & Other, the difference between our reserves and the actuarial point estimate is primarily driven by the potential tail volatility of run-off exposures.

The key assumptions fundamental to the reserving process are often different for various reserve groups and accident or policy years. Some of these assumptions are explicit assumptions that are required of a particular method, but most of the assumptions are implicit and cannot be precisely quantified. An example of an explicit assumption is the pattern employed in the paid development method. However, the assumed pattern is itself based on several implicit assumptions such as the impact of inflation on medical costs and the rate at which claim professionals close claims. As a result, the effect on reserve estimates of a particular change in assumptions typically cannot be specifically quantified, and changes in these assumptions cannot be tracked over time.

Our recorded reserves are management's best estimate. In order to provide an indication of the variability associated with our net reserves, the following discussion provides a sensitivity analysis that shows the approximate estimated impact of variations in significant factors affecting our reserve estimates for particular types of business. These significant factors are the ones that we believe could most likely materially affect the reserves. This discussion covers the major types of business for which we believe a material deviation to our reserves is reasonably possible. There can be no assurance that actual experience will be consistent with the current assumptions or with the variation indicated by the discussion. In addition, there can be no assurance that other factors and assumptions will not have a material impact on our reserves.

The areas for which we believe a significant deviation to our net reserves is reasonably possible are (i) professional liability, management liability (including medical professional liability) and surety products; (ii) workers' compensation; (iii) general liability, and (iv) commercial auto liability.

Professional liability, management liability and surety products include US professional liability coverages provided to various professional firms, including architects, real estate agents, small and mid-sized accounting firms, law firms and other professional firms. They also include directors and officers (D&O), errors and omissions (E&O), employment practices, fiduciary, fidelity, cyber and surety coverages, and medical liability. The most significant factor affecting reserve estimates for these liability coverages is claim severity. Claim severity is driven by the cost of medical care, the cost of wage replacement, legal fees, judicial decisions, legislative changes and other factors. Underwriting and claim handling decisions, such as the classes of business written and individual claim settlement decisions, can also affect claim severity. If the estimated claim severity increases by 9%, we estimate that net reserves would increase by approximately $500 million. If the estimated claim severity decreases by 3%, we estimate that net reserves would decrease by approximately $150 million. Our net reserves for these products were approximately $5.8 billion as of December 31, 2024.

For workers' compensation, since many years will pass from the time the business is written until all claim payments have been made, the most significant factor affecting workers' compensation reserve estimates is claim cost inflation on claim payments. Workers' compensation claim cost inflation is driven by the cost of medical care, the cost of wage replacement, expected claimant lifetimes, judicial decisions, legislative changes and other factors. If estimated workers' compensation claim cost inflation increases by 100 basis points for the entire period over which claim payments will be made, we estimate that our net reserves would increase by approximately $250 million. If estimated workers' compensation claim cost inflation decreases by 100 basis points for the entire period over which claim payments will be made, we estimate that our net reserves would decrease by approximately $250 million. Our net reserves for workers' compensation were approximately $3.5 billion as of December 31, 2024.

For general liability, the most significant factor affecting reserve estimates is claim severity. Claim severity is driven by changes in the cost of repairing or replacing property, the cost of medical care, the cost of wage replacement, judicial decisions, legislation and other factors. If the estimated claim severity for general liability increases by 6%, we estimate that our net reserves would increase by approximately $300 million. If the estimated claim severity for general liability decreases by 3%, we estimate that our net reserves would decrease by approximately $150 million. Our net reserves for general liability were approximately $4.9 billion as of December 31, 2024.

Commercial auto liability is also considered long-tail; however, both the frequency of claims and severity of loss assumptions for the latest few accident years are significantly influenced by social inflation, economic inflation, driving habits and attorney involvement. If these trends accelerate beyond expectations, there may be significant deviation in our net reserves. If the estimated auto liability claim severity were to increase 5% and frequency were to increase 1% on the three most recent accident years, we estimate that our net reserves would increase by approximately $90 million. Our net reserves for commercial auto were approximately $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2024.

Given the factors described above, it is not possible to quantify precisely the ultimate exposure represented by claims and related litigation. As a result, we regularly review the adequacy of our reserves and reassess our reserve estimates as historical loss experience develops, additional claims are reported and settled and additional information becomes available in subsequent periods. In reviewing our reserve estimates, we make adjustments in the period that the need for such adjustments is determined. These reviews have resulted in our identification of information and trends that have caused us to change our reserves in prior periods and could lead to our identification of a need for additional material increases or decreases in claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, which could materially affect our results of operations, equity, business and insurer financial strength and corporate debt ratings positively or negatively. See discussion within Note E to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 for additional information about reserve development and the Ratings section of this MD&A for further information regarding our financial strength and corporate debt ratings.

Life & Group Policyholder Reserves

Our Life & Group segment includes our run-off long-term care business as well as structured settlement obligations not funded by annuities related to certain property and casualty claimants. Long-term care policies may provide benefits for nursing homes, assisted living facilities and home health care subject to various daily and lifetime caps. Generally, policyholders must continue to make periodic premium payments to keep the policy in force and we have the ability to increase policy premiums, subject to state regulatory approval.

We maintain future policy benefit reserves for our long-term care policies. Future policy benefit reserves for long-term care policies relate to policyholders that are currently receiving benefits, including claims that have been incurred but are not yet reported, as well as policyholders that are not yet receiving benefits. In developing the future policy benefit reserves, our actuaries perform a reserve review on an annual basis. During the annual review, historical policyholder morbidity, persistency, anticipated future premium rate increases and expense experience is reviewed and compared to the current best estimate actuarial assumption set for potential revision. On a quarterly basis, our actuaries perform experience studies that monitor the appropriateness of best estimate actuarial assumptions against emerging experience to assess whether any updates to those assumptions are warranted. The determination of these reserves requires management to make estimates and assumptions about expected policyholder experience over the remaining life of the policies. Since policies may be in force for several decades, these assumptions are subject to significant estimation risk. Future policy benefit reserves are discounted as discussed in Note A to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

In addition, claim and claim adjustment expense reserves are maintained for our structured settlement obligations. In developing the claim and claim adjustment expense reserve estimates for our structured settlement obligations, our actuaries monitor mortality and expense experience on an annual basis. Our recorded claim and claim adjustment expense reserves reflect management's best estimate after incorporating the results of the most recent reviews. Claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for structured settlement obligations are discounted as discussed in Note A to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

The actuarial assumptions related to future policy benefit reserves for long-term care policies that management believes are subject to the most variability are morbidity, persistency and anticipated future premium rate increases. Morbidity is the frequency and severity of injury, illness, sickness and diseases contracted. Persistency is the percentage of policies remaining in force and can be affected by policy lapses, benefit reductions and death. Future premium rate increases are generally subject to regulatory approval, and therefore the exact timing and size of the approved rate increases are unknown. As a result of this variability, our long- term care reserves may be subject to material increases if actual experience develops adversely to our expectations.

The table below summarizes the estimated pretax impact on our results of operations from various hypothetical revisions to our liability for future policyholder benefits (LFPB) reserve assumptions. We have assumed that revisions to such assumptions would occur in each policy type, age and duration within each long-term care product. The impact of each sensitivity is discrete and does not reflect the impact one factor may have on another or the mitigating impact from management actions, which may include additional future premium rate increases. Although such hypothetical revisions are not currently required or anticipated, we believe they could occur based on past variances in experience and our expectations of the ranges of future experience that could reasonably occur. Any actual adjustment would be dependent on the specific policies affected and, therefore, may differ from the estimates summarized below. The estimated impacts to results of operations in the table below are after consideration of any net premium ratio impacts.

As part of the annual reserve review, statutory long-term care reserve adequacy is evaluated via premium deficiency testing, by comparing carried statutory reserves with our best estimate reserves, which incorporates best estimate discount rate and liability assumptions in its determination. Statutory margin is the excess of carried reserves over best estimate reserves. As of September 30, 2024, statutory long-term care margin increased to $1.4 billion from $1.3 billion, primarily driven by a more favorable interest rate environment resulting in a higher yielding investment portfolio.