We continuously monitor the creditworthiness of reinsurers in order to determine our risk of recoverability on an individual and aggregate basis, and a provision for uncollectible reinsurance is recorded if needed. No amounts have been deemed unrecoverable in the three-years ended December 31, 2004. We have a reinsurance treaty through which we cede re-investment related risk on our structured settlement annuities to ALIC. The terms of this treaty meet the accounting definition of a derivative under SFAS No. 133. Accordingly, the treaty is recorded in the Statements of Financial Position at fair value, and changes in the fair value of the treaty and premiums paid to ALIC are recognized in realized capital gains and losses. Effective January 1, 2004, guaranteed minimum accumulation benefits ("GMABs") on variable annuities are 100% ceded to ALIC through a reinsurance treaty.
Traditional life insurance products consist principally of products with fixed and guaranteed premiums and benefits, primarily term and whole life insurance products. Premiums from these products are recognized as revenue when due. Benefits are recognized in relation to such revenue so as to result in the recognition of profits over the life of the policy and are reflected in contract benefits. Immediate annuities with life contingencies, including certain structured settlement annuities, provide insurance protection over a period that extends beyond the period during which premiums are collected. Premiums from these products are recognized as revenue when due, at the inception of the contract. Benefits and expenses are recognized in relation to such revenue such that profits are recognized over the lives of the contracts. Interest-sensitive life contracts, such as universal life and single premium life, are insurance contracts whose terms are not fixed and guaranteed. The terms that may be changed include premiums paid by the contractholder, interest credited to the contractholder account balance and any amounts assessed against the contractholder account balance. Premiums from these contracts are reported as contractholder fund deposits. Contract charges consist of fees assessed against the contractholder account balance for cost of insurance (mortality risk), contract administration and early surrender. These revenues are recognized when assessed against the contractholder account balance. Contract benefits include life-contingent benefit payments in excess of the contractholder account balance. Contracts that do not subject the Company to significant risk arising from mortality or morbidity are referred to as investment contracts. Fixed annuities, including market value adjusted annuities and immediate annuities without life contingencies are considered investment contracts. Deposits received for such contracts are reported as contractholder fund deposits. Contract charges for investment contracts consist of fees assessed against the
- Establishment of reserves primarily related to death benefit and income benefit guarantees provided under variable annuity contracts; - Deferral of sales inducements that meet certain criteria, and amortization using the same method used for DAC.
- ---------- (1) Included in the total liability balance are reserves for variable annuity death benefits of $662 thousand, variable annuity income benefits of $18 thousand, variable annuity accumulation benefits of $(141) thousand and other guarantees of $63 thousand.
(1) The January 1, 2004 balance includes a $3.0 million write-down of DSI due to the adoption of SOP 03-1 (see Note 2).
Legal proceedings involving Allstate agencies and AIC may impact the Company, even when the Company is not directly involved, because the Company sells its products through a variety of distribution channels including Allstate agencies. Consequently, information about the more significant of these proceedings is provided below. AIC is defending various lawsuits involving worker classification issues. A putative nationwide class action filed by former employee agents includes a worker classification issue; these agents are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. This matter was dismissed with prejudice in late March 2004 by the trial court but is the subject of further proceedings on appeal. AIC has been vigorously defending this and various other worker classification lawsuits. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain. AIC is defending certain matters relating to its agency program reorganization announced in 1999. These matters include a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws, a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA violations, and a lawsuit filed in October 2004 by the EEOC alleging age discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of agents affected by the agency program reorganization. AIC is also defending another action, in which a class was certified in June 2004, filed by former employee agents who terminated their employment prior to the agency program reorganization. These plaintiffs have asserted claims under ERISA and for constructive discharge, and are seeking the benefits provided in connection with the reorganization. In late March 2004, in the first EEOC lawsuit and class action lawsuit, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release signer. The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release." The court also "concluded that, on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination." The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order. The case otherwise remains pending. A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA. This matter was dismissed with prejudice in late March 2004 by the trial court but is the subject of further proceedings on appeal. In these matters, plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief. AIC has been vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to its agency program reorganization. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.