ALLSTATE CORP

Allstate is subject to extensive regulation, primarily at the state level. The method, extent and substance of such regulation vary by state but generally have their source in statutes that establish standards and requirements for conducting the business of insurance and that also delegate regulatory authority to a state agency. These rules have a substantial effect on our business and relate to a wide variety of matters, including insurer solvency and statutory surplus sufficiency, reserve adequacy, insurance company licensing and examination, agent and adjuster licensing, agent and broker compensation, policy forms, rate setting, the nature and amount of investments, claims practices, participation in shared markets and guaranty funds, transactions with affiliates, the payment of dividends, underwriting standards, statutory accounting methods, trade practices, privacy regulation and data security, corporate governance and risk management. In addition, state legislators and insurance regulators continue to examine the appropriate nature and scope of state insurance regulation. For a discussion of statutory financial information, see Note 17 of the consolidated financial statements.

For a discussion of regulatory contingencies, see Note 15 of the consolidated financial statements. Note 15 and Note 17 are incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) created the Federal Insurance Office (“FIO”) within the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”). The FIO monitors the insurance industry, provides advice to the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”), represents the U.S. on international insurance matters, and studies the current regulatory system.

Additional regulations or new requirements may emerge from the activities of various regulatory entities, including the Federal Reserve Board, FIO, FSOC, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”), and the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, that are evaluating solvency and capital standards for insurance company groups. In addition, the NAIC has adopted amendments to its model holding company law that have been adopted by some jurisdictions. The outcome of these actions is uncertain; however, these actions may impact the business models and profitability of insurance holding companies.

We cannot predict whether any specific state or federal measures will be adopted to change the nature or scope of the regulation of insurance or what effect any such measures would have on Allstate. We are working for changes in the regulatory environment to make insurance more available and affordable for customers, encourage market innovation, improve driving safety, strengthen cybersecurity and promote better catastrophe preparedness and loss mitigation.

Limitations on Dividends by Insurance Subsidiaries As a holding company with most business operations conducted by subsidiaries, The Allstate Corporation relies on dividends from Allstate Insurance Company as one of the principal sources of cash to pay dividends and to meet its obligations, including the payment of principal and interest on debt or to fund non-insurance-related businesses. Allstate Insurance Company is regulated as an insurance company in Illinois, and its ability to pay dividends is restricted by Illinois law. The laws of the other jurisdictions that generally govern our other insurance subsidiaries contain similar limitations on the payment of dividends. However, such laws in some jurisdictions may be more restrictive.

For additional information regarding limitations, see Part II, Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this report.

In addition, the NAIC adopted a group capital calculation covering all entities of the insurance company group for use in solvency monitoring activities by regulators. Any increase in the amount of capital or reserves our insurance subsidiaries are required to hold could reduce the amount of future dividends such subsidiaries are able to distribute to the holding company. Any reduction in the risk-based capital (“RBC”) ratios of our insurance subsidiaries could also adversely affect their financial strength ratings as determined by statistical rating agencies. We have not experienced, and we do not expect to experience, any impact from the group capital calculation on our current dividend plans.

Insurance Holding Company Regulation – Change of Control The Allstate Corporation is a holding company and its insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulation in the jurisdictions in which they write business. In the U.S., these subsidiaries are organized under the insurance codes of Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas. Additionally, some of these subsidiaries are considered commercially domiciled in California, Florida, and Texas.

Generally, the insurance codes in these states provide that the acquisition or change of “control” of a domestic or commercially domiciled insurer or of any person that controls such an insurer cannot be consummated without the prior approval of the relevant insurance regulator. In general, a presumption of “control” arises from the ownership, control, possession with the power to vote, or possession of proxies with respect to ten percent or more of the voting securities of an insurer or of a person who controls an insurer. In addition, certain state insurance laws require pre-acquisition notification to state agencies of a change in control with respect to a non-domestic insurance company licensed to do business in that state. While such pre-acquisition notification

12 www.allstate.com statutes do not authorize the state agency to disapprove the change of control, such statutes do authorize certain remedies, including the issuance of a cease-and-desist order with respect to the non-domestic insurer if certain conditions exist, such as undue market concentration.

Thus, any transaction involving the acquisition of ten percent or more of The Allstate Corporation’s common stock would generally require prior approval by the state insurance departments in Alabama (where the threshold is five percent or more of The Allstate Corporation’s common stock), California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas. Moreover, notification would be required in those other states that have adopted pre-acquisition notification provisions and where the insurance subsidiaries are admitted to transact business. Such approval requirements may deter, delay or prevent certain transactions affecting the ownership of The Allstate Corporation’s common stock.

Rate Regulation Nearly all states have insurance laws requiring personal property and casualty insurers to file rating plans, policy or coverage forms, and other information with the state’s regulatory authority. In many cases, such rating plans, policy forms, or both must be approved prior to use.

The speed with which an insurer can change rates in response to competition or increasing costs depends on the state rating laws, which include the following categories:

•Prior approval — Regulators must approve a rate before the insurer may use it (21 states)

•File-and-use — Insurers do not have to wait for the regulator’s approval to use a rate, but the rate must be filed with the regulatory authority prior to being used (20 states)

•Use-and-file — Requires an insurer to file rates within a certain period of time after the insurer begins using them (9 states)

•No filing or approval — One state, with an immaterial amount of written premiums, does not require a filing to be submitted

Under these rating laws, the regulator has the authority to disapprove a rate filing.

An insurer’s ability to adjust its rates in response to competition or to changing costs is dependent on an insurer’s ability to demonstrate to the regulator that its rates or proposed rating plan meets the requirements of the rating laws. In those states that significantly restrict an insurer’s discretion in selecting the business that it wants to underwrite, an insurer can manage its risk of loss by charging a rate that reflects the cost and expense of providing the insurance. In those states that significantly restrict an insurer’s ability to charge a rate that reflects the cost and expense of providing the insurance, the insurer may be able to manage its risk of loss by being more selective in the type of business it underwrites. When a state significantly restricts both underwriting and pricing, it becomes more difficult for an insurer to maintain its targeted level of profitability.

From time to time, the personal lines insurance industry comes under pressure from state regulators, legislators, and special-interest groups to reduce, freeze, or set rates at levels that do not correspond with our analysis of underlying costs, catastrophe loss exposure, and expenses. We expect this kind of pressure to persist. Allstate and other insurers are using increasingly sophisticated pricing models and rating plans that are reviewed by regulators and special-interest groups. States may limit the ability of insurers to include variables in their rating plans even though they are indicative of risk. State regulators may interpret existing law or rely on future legislation or regulations to impose new restrictions that adversely affect profitability or growth. We cannot predict the impact on our business of possible future legislative and regulatory measures regarding insurance rates.

Involuntary Markets As a condition of maintaining our licenses to write personal property and casualty insurance in various states, we are required to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities, and joint underwriting associations that provide various types of insurance coverage to individuals or entities that otherwise are unable to purchase such coverage from private insurers. Underwriting results related to these arrangements, which tend to be adverse, have been immaterial to our results of operations.

For a discussion of these items see Note 15 of the consolidated financial statements. Note 15 is incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.

Indemnification Programs We are a participant in state-based industry pools, facilities or associations, mandating participation by insurers offering certain coverage in their state, including the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (“MCCA”), the New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association, the North Carolina Reinsurance Facility and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. We also participate in the Federal Government National Flood Insurance Program.

The Allstate Corporation 13

Recent regulatory changes have occurred related to the MCCA.

•On July 2, 2021, Public Acts 21 and 22, which passed in 2019, became effective, setting fee schedules for personal injury protection claims. Such fee schedules were set at 200% of Medicare rates in 2021, declining to 195% in 2022 and 190% in 2023, for any providers other than certain unique categories of providers and applying to treatment on existing and new claims.

•Other legislative proposals to change the MCCA operation in the future and to adjust Public Acts 21 and 22 are put forth periodically, as well as a recent Michigan Supreme Court decision that found that the reimbursement rates described above applied only to motor vehicle accidents occurring in 2019 or later.

For a discussion of these items see Note 11 of the consolidated financial statements. Note 11 is incorporated in this Part I, Item 1 by reference.

Guaranty Funds Under state insurance guaranty fund laws, insurers doing business in a state can be assessed, up to prescribed limits, in order to cover certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies. We do not anticipate any material adverse financial impact on Allstate from these assessments.

Investment Regulation Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to state regulation that specifies the types of investments that can be made and concentration limits of invested assets. Failure to comply with these rules leads to the treatment of non-conforming investments as non-admitted assets for purposes of measuring statutory surplus. Further, in some instances, these rules require divestiture of non-conforming investments.

Exiting Geographic Markets; Canceling and Non-Renewing Policies Most states regulate an insurer’s ability to exit a market. For example, states may limit, to varying degrees, an insurer’s ability to cancel and non-renew policies. Some states restrict or prohibit an insurer from withdrawing one or more types of insurance business from the state, except pursuant to a plan that is approved by the state insurance department. Regulations that limit cancellation and non-renewal and that subject withdrawal plans to prior approval requirements may restrict an insurer’s ability to exit unprofitable markets.

Broker-Dealer and Investment Advisers The Allstate entities that operate as a broker-dealer and registered investment advisers are subject to regulation and supervision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Financial Institution Regulatory Authority and/or, in some cases, state securities administrators. The SEC has proposed rules and amendments related to cybersecurity risk management and cybersecurity-related disclosure for broker-dealers, registered investment advisers, registered investment companies, and business development companies. Certain state and federal regulators are considering or have implemented best

interest or fiduciary standards. Such standards could impact products provided by Allstate agents and Allstate’s broker-dealer, their sales processes, sales volume, and producer compensation arrangements.

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which contains several tax-related provisions, was signed into law in August 2022. The law creates a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax (“CAMT”) on certain large corporations and an excise tax of 1% on stock repurchases by publicly traded U.S. corporations, both effective after December 31, 2022. The excise tax on common stock repurchases is classified as an additional cost of the stock acquired included in treasury stock in shareholders' equity. The Company has determined that it is considered an “applicable corporation” under the rules of CAMT.

15% Global Minimum Tax The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) secured agreement from nearly 140 countries to address how corporate profits are taxed for multinational enterprises (“MNEs”). OECD has released Pillar Two Model Rules, a 15% minimum effective tax rate (also known as the Global Anti-Base Erosion “GloBE” Rules), designed to ensure that large MNEs pay a minimum level of tax on the income arising in each jurisdiction where they operate and mandates sharing of certain company information with taxing authorities on a local and global basis.

Certain jurisdictions have enacted, and others have proposed, legislation to implement certain provisions of Pillar Two for fiscal years beginning on or after December 31, 2023. We are continuing to monitor the implications resulting from the potential enactment of Pillar Two rules in the jurisdictions where we operate.

Climate disclosures In March 2022, the SEC released its climate-related proposed regulation, requiring registrants to provide certain climate-related information in their registration statements and annual reports. The proposed rule would require information about a registrant’s climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on its business, results of operations, or financial condition. The required information about climate-related risks would also include disclosure of a registrant’s greenhouse gas emissions, which have become a commonly used metric to assess a registrant’s exposure to such risks. In addition, under the proposed rule, certain climate-related financial metrics would be required in a registrant’s audited financial statements. The Company is evaluating the anticipated impacts of the proposed guidance to its disclosures.

In October 2023, California enacted several climate disclosure bills. One of these is the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (Senate Bill 253), which requires disclosure and assurance over greenhouse gas emissions using a phased reporting approach. The law requires the California Air Resources Board to develop and adopt implementing regulations no later than January 1, 2025. Allstate has publicly reported its greenhouse gas inventory since 2010. We will continue

14 www.allstate.com evaluating the anticipated impacts and scope of the new laws on our reporting and disclosures.

Dodd-Frank: Covered Agreement On September 22, 2017, the U.S. and European Union signed a Covered Agreement, a bilateral agreement that “relates to the recognition of prudential measures with respect to the business of insurance or reinsurance that achieves a level of protection for insurance or reinsurance consumers that is substantially equivalent to the level of protection achieved under State insurance or reinsurance regulation.”

The U.S. had five years from the date of signing to amend its credit for reinsurance laws and regulations to conform with the requirements of the Covered Agreement or face federal preemption determinations by the FIO. To address the requirements of the Covered Agreement, the NAIC formally adopted revisions to its existing credit for reinsurance model law and model regulation, with the expectation that states would adopt and implement the modified model law and regulation by September 2022. A sufficient number of states have adopted the model law and/or regulation to avoid federal preemption.

Division Statute On November 27, 2018, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation authorizing a statute that makes available a process by which a domestic insurance company may divide into two or more domestic insurance companies. The statute, which became effective January 1, 2019, can be used to divide continuing blocks of insurance business from insurance business no longer marketed, or otherwise discontinued into separate companies with separate capital. The statute can also be used for sale to a third party or to manage risks associated with indemnification programs. Before a plan of division can be effected it must be approved according to the organizational documents of the dividing insurer and submitted for approval by the Illinois Department of Insurance. In 2021, Allstate Insurance Company and certain affiliate insurance companies utilized the division statute to form three Illinois domiciled insurance companies that retained assets and liabilities for certain Michigan automobile insurance policies with catastrophic personal injury claims that are ceded to the MCCA.

Privacy Regulation and Data Security Federal law and the laws of many states require financial institutions to protect the security and confidentiality of consumer information and to notify consumers about their policies and practices relating to collection, use, disclosure, and protection of consumer information. Federal law and the laws of many states also regulate disclosures and disposal of consumer information. Congress, state legislatures, and regulatory authorities are currently considering additional regulation relating to privacy of personal information.

For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act, which took effect in January 2023, as well as similar laws in Virginia, Connecticut, and approximately nine other states (with various effective dates), impose significant compliance requirements for certain businesses in those states. Among other things, these privacy laws provide consumers with privacy rights such as the right to request access to or deletion of their personal information. The California Privacy Rights Act established a new privacy regulatory agency. In November 2023, the New York State Department of Financial Services amended its cybersecurity regulation, including both new and heightened requirements. The NAIC created an Insurance Data Security Model Law, which several states have adopted in some form, establishing standards for data security, including the investigation of and notification to insurance commissioners of cybersecurity events. Additional states are also likely to adopt similarly themed cybersecurity requirements in the future. We cannot predict the impact on our business of possible future legislative or regulatory measures regarding privacy or cybersecurity.

Asbestos Congress has repeatedly considered legislation to address asbestos claims and litigation in the past. We cannot predict the impact on our business of possible future legislative measures regarding asbestos.

Environmental Environmental pollution and clean-up of polluted waste sites is the subject of federal and state regulation. The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (the “Superfund”) and comparable state statutes (the “mini-Superfunds”) govern the clean-up and restoration of waste sites by Potentially Responsible Parties (“PRPs”). The Superfund and the mini-Superfunds (collectively, the “Environmental Clean-up Laws” or “ECLs”) establish a mechanism to assign liability to PRPs or to fund the clean-up of waste sites if PRPs fail to do so. The extent of liability to be allocated to a PRP depends on a variety of factors. The insurance industry is involved in extensive litigation regarding coverage issues arising out of the clean-up of waste sites by insured PRPs and the insured parties’ alleged liability to third parties responsible for the clean-up. The insurance industry, including Allstate, has disputed and is disputing many such claims. Key coverage issues include whether the Superfund response, investigation, and clean-up costs are considered damages under the policies; whether coverage has been triggered; whether any pollution exclusion applies; whether there has been proper notice of claims; whether administrative liability triggers the duty to defend; whether there is an appropriate allocation of liability among potentially responsible insurers; and whether the liability in question falls within the definition of an “occurrence.” Identical coverage issues exist for clean-up and waste sites not covered under the Superfund. To date, courts have been inconsistent in their rulings on these issues.

The Allstate Corporation 15

Allstate’s exposure to liability with regard to its insureds that have been, or may be, named as PRPs is uncertain. While comprehensive Superfund reform proposals have been introduced in Congress, only modest reform measures have been enacted. In May 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency created a Superfund Task Force that issued proposed reforms in its 2019 final report. These recommendations address expediting clean-up and remediation processes, reducing the financial burden of the clean-up process, encouraging private investment, promoting redevelopment and community revitalization, and building and strengthening partnerships. We cannot predict which, if any, of these reforms will be enacted or, if enacted, what their impact may be.

Developments in the insurance and reinsurance industries have fostered a movement to segregate asbestos, environmental and other run-off lines exposures into separate legal entities with dedicated capital. Regulatory bodies in certain cases have supported these actions. We are unable to determine the impact, if any, that these developments will have on the collectability of reinsurance recoverables in the future.

16 www.allstate.com