Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, among others: the competition currently existing in the automobile insurance markets in California and the other states in which the Company operates; the cyclical and generally competitive nature of the property and casualty insurance industry and general uncertainties regarding loss reserves or other estimates; the accuracy and adequacy of the Company’s pricing methodologies; the Company’s success in managing its non-California business; the impact of potential third party “bad-faith” legislation, changes in laws, regulations or new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, tax position challenges by the California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”), and decisions of courts, regulators and governmental bodies, particularly in California; the Company’s ability to obtain and the timing of required regulatory approvals of premium rate changes for insurance policies issued in states where the Company operates; the Company’s reliance on independent agents to market and distribute its policies; the investment yields the Company is able to obtain on its investments and the market risks associated with the Company’s investment portfolio; the effect government policies may have on market interest rates; uncertainties related to assumptions and projections generally, inflation and changes in economic conditions; changes in driving patterns and loss trends; acts of war and terrorist activities; court decisions, trends in litigation, and health care and auto repair costs; adverse weather conditions or natural disasters, including those which may be related to climate change, in the markets served by the Company; the stability of the Company’s information technology systems and the ability of the Company to execute on its information technology initiatives; the Company’s ability to realize deferred tax assets or to hold certain securities with current loss positions to recovery or maturity; and other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those discussed in “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or that are otherwise described or updated from time to time in the Company's SEC filings, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the Company’s control. GAAP prescribes when a Company may reserve for particular risks including litigation exposures. Accordingly, results for a given reporting period could be significantly affected if and when a reserve is established for a major contingency. Reported results may therefore appear to be volatile in certain periods.
to limit spending. Further, softness in the European banking sector and the Japanese fiscal condition continue to lead to weaker global economic growth, heightened financial vulnerabilities and some negative rating actions. The Company is unable to predict the duration and severity of current global economic conditions and their impact on the United States, and California, where the majority of the Company’s business is produced. If economic conditions do not show improvement, there could be an adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.
In general, the Company expects that historical claims trends will continue with costs tending to increase, which is generally consistent with historical data, and therefore the Company believes that it is reasonable to expect inflation to continue. The Company is experiencing inflation at a rate that is higher than in recent years. Many potential factors can affect the BI inflation rate, including changes in claims handling process, statutes and regulations, the number of litigated files, increased use of medical procedures such as MRIs and epidural injections, general economic factors, timeliness of claims adjudication, vehicle safety, weather patterns, and gasoline prices, among other factors; however, the magnitude of such impact on the inflation rate is unknown.
The Company’s effective income tax rate can be affected by several factors. These generally include tax exempt investment income, non-deductible expenses, and periodically, non-routine tax items such as adjustments to unrecognized tax benefits related to tax uncertainties. The effective tax rate was 15.1% for 2013, compared to 13.6% for 2012. The increase in the effective tax rate is mainly due to an increase in taxable income relative to tax exempt investment income and an increase in the provision for the Company's state income tax uncertainties. The Company’s effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2013 was lower than the statutory tax rate primarily as a result of tax exempt investment income earned.
Included in fixed maturity securities are $264.7 million and $155.6 million of corporate securities, which had durations of 3.4 and 1.8 years, at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The weighted-average rating was BBB as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.
Equity holdings consist of non-redeemable preferred stocks, common stocks on which dividend income is partially tax-sheltered by the 70% corporate dividend received deduction, and a partnership interest in a private credit fund. The net gains in 2013 due to changes in fair value of the Company’s equity portfolio were $56.8 million. The primary cause of the increase in the value of the Company’s equity securities was the overall improvement in the equity markets.
The Company’s significant contractual obligations at December 31, 2013 are summarized as follows:
The Company’s debt contains various terms, conditions and covenants which, if violated by the Company, would result in a default and could result in the acceleration of the Company’s payment obligations. Amounts differ from the balance presented on the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2013 because the debt amounts above include interest, calculated at the most recent LIBOR rate and bank margin in effect, and an additional draw of $20 million made subsequent to December 31, 2013.
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for Each of the Years in the Three-Year Period Ended December 31, 2013
The Company periodically assesses long-lived assets or asset groups including building and equipment, for recoverability when events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amount may not be recoverable. If the Company identifies an indicator of impairment, the Company assesses recoverability by comparing the carrying amount of the asset to the sum of the undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and the eventual disposal of the asset. An impairment loss is recognized when the carrying amount is not recoverable and is measured as the excess of carrying value over fair value. The Company recorded no impairment charges during the three years ended December 31, 2013.
The Company analyzes loss reserves quarterly primarily using the incurred loss, claim count development, and average severity methods described below. The Company also uses the paid loss development method to analyze loss adjustment expense reserves as part of its reserve analysis. When deciding among methods to use, the Company evaluates the credibility of each method based on the maturity of the data available and the claims settlement practices for each particular line of business or coverage within a line of business. When establishing the reserve, the Company will generally analyze the results from all of the methods used rather than relying on a single method. While these methods are designed to determine the ultimate losses on claims under the Company’s policies, there is inherent uncertainty in all actuarial models since they use historical data to project outcomes. The Company believes that the techniques it uses provide a reasonable basis in estimating loss reserves.
At December 31, 2013, the Company’s deferred income taxes were in a net asset position which included a combination of ordinary and capital deferred tax benefits. In assessing the ability to realize deferred tax assets, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized. The ultimate realization of deferred tax assets is dependent upon generating sufficient taxable income of the appropriate character within the carryback and carryforward periods available under the tax law. Management considers the reversal of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income of an appropriate nature, and tax-planning strategies in making this assessment. The Company believes that through the use of prudent tax planning strategies and the generation of capital gains, sufficient income will be realized in order to maximize the full benefits of its deferred tax assets. Although realization is not assured, management believes that it is more likely than not that the Company’s deferred tax assets will be realized.
The following table presents the components of other intangible assets as of December 31, 2013 and 2012.
The increase in the provision for insured events of prior years in 2013 of approximately $3 million primarily resulted from Florida claims that were re-opened from prior years due to a state supreme court ruling that was adverse to the insurance industry.
On February 7, 2014, the Board of Directors declared a $0.6150 quarterly dividend payable on March 31, 2014 to shareholders of record on March 17, 2014.
The Company is obligated under various non-cancellable lease agreements providing for office space, automobiles, and office equipment that expire at various dates through the year 2019. For leases that contain predetermined escalations of the minimum rentals, the Company recognizes the related rent expense on a straight-line basis and records the difference between the recognized rental expense and amounts payable under the leases as deferred rent in other liabilities. This liability amounted to $3.4 million and $2.2 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Total rent expense under these lease agreements was $19.3 million, $17.7 million, and $18.2 million for 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
In March 2006, the California DOI issued an Amended Notice of Non-Compliance to a Notice of Non-Compliance originally issued in February 2004 (as amended, “2004 NNC”) alleging that the Company charged rates in violation of the California Insurance Code, willfully permitted its agents to charge broker fees in violation of California law, and willfully misrepresented the actual price insurance consumers could expect to pay for insurance by the amount of a fee charged by the consumer's insurance broker. The California DOI seeks to impose a fine for each policy in which the Company allegedly permitted an agent to charge a broker fee and a penalty for each on which the Company allegedly used a misleading advertisement and to suspend certificates of authority for a period of one year. In January 2012, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) bifurcated the 2004 NNC between (a) the California DOI’s order to show cause, in which the California DOI asserts the false advertising allegations and accusation, and (b) the California DOI’s notice of noncompliance, in which the California DOI asserts the unlawful rate allegations. In February 2012, the ALJ submitted a proposed decision dismissing the California DOI’s 2004 NNC. In March 2012, the California Insurance Commissioner rejected the ALJ’s proposed decision. The Company challenged the rejection in Superior Court in April 2012. Following a hearing, the Superior Court sustained the California Insurance Commissioner’s demurrer without leave to amend because it found the Company must first exhaust its administrative remedies. In January 2013, the Superior Court’s decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal. In January 2013, the ALJ heard various pending motions that had been filed by the Company in June 2011. The ALJ granted certain portions of the California DOI's motion for collateral estoppel to prevent the Company from litigating certain findings of fact reached in a prior litigation action and denied the Company's motion for governmental estoppel and laches, without prejudice, on the ground that a resolution of the motion requires specific factual findings in the context of the evidentiary hearing. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on the noncompliance portion of the 2004 NNC during April 2013. A mediation was held in September 2013, but the parties were unable to reach a settlement of the matter. Post-hearing briefs have been filed by the Company, the California DOI, and a consumer group. Until the evidentiary record is closed, there is no set timetable for a decision by the ALJ or, thereafter, a decision by the California Insurance Commissioner.