Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2003

Commission File Number 1-7461

OR

ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANIES INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

Suite 1600, 300 West Broadway

Council Bluffs, Iowa 51503

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

(Zip Code)

Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code:

(712) 329-3600

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant has been required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s voting stock held by nonaffiliates (11,727,000 shares) on June 30, 2003 was $117,000.

The number of shares of each class of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding on June 25, 2004 was:

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the Registrant’s 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III.

GLOSSARY OF INSURANCE TERMS

Catastrophic Coverage (“CAT”): The minimum available level of Multi-Peril Crop Insurance, providing coverage for 50% of a producer’s historical yield for eligible crops at 55% of the price established annually by RMA.

Combined Ratio: The sum of the expense ratio and the loss ratio determined in accordance with GAAP or Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”).

Crop Revenue Coverage (“CRC”): An extension of the MPCI program that provides a producer of crops with varying levels of insurance protection against loss of revenues caused by changes in crop prices, low yields, or a combination of the two.

Crop Revenue CoveragePlus (“CRCPlus”): An endorsement to CRC that allows the agricultural producer to increase the base price of the underlying CRC policy by a specific amount. Unlike CRC, however, CRCPlus coverages are not subsidized or reinsured by the federal government.

Crop Year: For MPCI, a crop year commences on July 1 and ends on June 30. For crop hail and named peril insurance, the crop year is typically the calendar year.

Direct Written Premiums: Total premiums collected in respect of policies issued by an insurer during a given period without any reduction for premiums ceded to reinsurers.

Excess of Loss Reinsurance: A form of reinsurance in which the reinsurer, subject to a specified limit, agrees to indemnify the ceding company for the amount of each loss, on a defined class of business, that exceeds a specified retention.

Expense Ratio: Under statutory accounting, the ratio of insurance expenses to net premiums written. Under GAAP accounting, the ratio of insurance expenses to net premiums earned.

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (“FCIC”): A wholly owned government corporation administered by the Risk Management Agency within USDA.

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”): Accounting practices as set forth in opinions and pronouncements of the Financial Accounting Standards Board and Accounting Principles Board and American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Accounting Research Bulletins and which are applicable in the circumstances as of the date in question.

Gross Written Premiums: Direct written premiums plus premiums collected in respect of policies assumed, in whole or in part, from other insurance carriers.

Incurred But Not Reported (“IBNR”) Reserves: The liability for future payments on losses that have already occurred but have not yet been reported to the insurer. IBNR reserves include LAE related to such losses and may also provide for future adverse loss development on reported claims.

2

Loss Adjustment Expenses (“LAE”): Expenses incurred in the settlement of claims, including outside adjustment expenses, legal fees and internal administrative costs associated with the claims adjustment process, but not including general overhead expenses.

Loss Ratio: The ratio of losses and LAE incurred to premiums earned.

Loss Reserves: Liabilities established by insurers to reflect the estimated ultimate cost of claim payments as of a given date.

MPCI Imputed Premiums: For purposes of the profit/loss sharing arrangement with the FCIC, the amount of premiums credited to the Company for all CAT Coverages it sells, as such amount is determined by formula.

MPCI Gross Premiums: The amount of premiums for all MPCI and CRC paid by agricultural producers plus the amount of any related federal premium subsidies and MPCI Imputed Premiums.

MPCI Retained Premiums: The aggregate amount of MPCI Gross Premiums that the Company retains after allocating risks to the three FCIC reinsurance pools.

Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (“MPCI”): A federally regulated subsidized crop insurance program that insures a producer of crops with varying levels of protection against loss of yield. Covered losses can vary but generally include adverse weather, fire, insects, plant disease, wildlife and earthquake.

NAIC: The National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Net Premiums Earned: The portion of net premiums written applicable to the expired period of policies and, accordingly, recognized as income during a given period.

Net Premiums Written: Total premiums for insurance written (less any return premiums) during a given period, reduced by premiums ceded in respect to liability reinsured by other carriers.

Policyholders’ or Statutory Surplus: As determined under SAP (hereinafter defined), the excess of total admitted assets over total liabilities.

Quota Share Reinsurance: A form of reinsurance whereby the reinsurer agrees to participate, at a stated percentage, in all risks of a defined class of business.

Reinsurance: The practice whereby a company called the “reinsurer” assumes, for a share of the premium, all or part of a risk originally undertaken by another insurer called the “ceding” company or “cedent.” Reinsurance may be affected by “treaty” reinsurance, where a standing agreement between the ceding and reinsuring companies automatically covers all risks of a defined category, amount and type, or by “facultative” reinsurance where reinsurance is negotiated and accepted on a risk-by-risk basis.

Retention: The amount of liability, premiums or losses that an insurance company keeps for its own account after application of reinsurance.

3

Risk-Based Capital (“RBC”): Capital requirements for property and casualty insurance companies adopted by the NAIC to assess minimum capital requirements and to raise the level of protection that statutory surplus provides for policyholder obligations.

Risk Management Agency (“RMA”): A division of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) which, along with the FCIC administers and provides reinsurance for the federally regulated MPCI and CRC programs.

Standard Reinsurance Agreement (“SRA”): The reinsurance agreement related to crop reinsurance under the federal crop program between FCIC and affiliates of the Company.

Stop Loss Reinsurance: A form of reinsurance, similar to Excess of Loss Reinsurance, whereby the primary insurer caps its loss on a particular risk by purchasing reinsurance in excess of such cap.

Statutory Accounting Principles (“SAP”): Accounting practices that consist of recording transactions and preparing financial statements in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed or permitted by the NAIC’s Codification of Statutory Accounting Principles or established by state laws and permitted practices.

4

PART I

Item 1. Business

Forward-Looking Information

Except for the historical information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, matters discussed herein may constitute forward-looking information, within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking information reflects Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc.’s current best estimates regarding future operations, but, as these are only estimates, actual results may differ materially from such estimates.

A variety of factors, most of which are outside the control of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”), cannot be accurately predicted and may materially impact estimates of future operations. Important among such factors are changes in state and federal regulations, changes in the reinsurance market, including the ability and willingness of reinsurers to pay claims, decisions by regulators including increased control over Acceptance Insurance Company, financial market performance, changes in federal policies or court decisions affecting coverages, changes in the rate of inflation, interest rates and general economic conditions.

The only remaining consolidated insurance subsidiary of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. (“AICI”) at December 31, 2003 and 2002, Acceptance Insurance Company (“AIC”), is regulated by the Nebraska Department of Insurance (“NEDOI”). The NEDOI Director (“Director”) entered an administrative Order of Supervision with respect to AIC on December 20, 2002 and AIC currently is operating pursuant to that Order. AIC’s total statutory policyholders’ deficit was approximately $61.3 million and $75.0 million at December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. AIC’s statutory deficit at December 31, 2003 and 2002 was significantly impacted by the non-admission under statutory accounting principles of pledged investments totaling approximately $57.5 million and $89.9 million, respectively. The Director currently has the authority to increase regulatory control of AIC by requesting an appropriate court to enter an Order of Rehabilitation or an Order of Liquidation, with or without a change in the financial condition of AIC. The Company believes that an Order of Rehabilitation would have a significant negative impact on the Company and that an Order of Liquidation would have a material adverse effect on the Company. Additionally, if the NEDOI obtains an Order of Rehabilitation or Order of Liquidation with respect to AIC, the Company believes that it is unlikely that AICI would be able to meet its short-term cash flow needs.

Additionally, there is significant uncertainty as to whether AIC will be able to meet its future cash flow needs. At December 31, 2003 approximately 76% and 32% of AIC’s fixed maturity securities and cash and cash equivalents, respectively, are pledged to states and to acquirers of former Company affiliates and AIC’s ability to meet its cash flow needs will be highly dependent upon AIC’s ability to get significant amounts of pledged funds released (See “Off Balance Sheet – Guarantees Related to Sale of Subsidiaries”). Additionally, AIC’s cash flows are significantly impacted by any changes in the expected payout of insurance losses and loss adjustment expenses (See “Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves”). AIC’s ability to meet its cash flow needs is also dependent upon the timely recovery of reinsurance balances, including the favorable resolution of balances currently in dispute (See “Reinsurance”). Based upon current estimates management of the Company believes AIC would likely have the ability to meet its cash flow needs through December 31, 2004 assuming the NEDOI does not obtain an Order of Rehabilitation or Order of Liquidation with respect to AIC. There can be no assurances considering the significant uncertainties that exist that AIC will have the ability to meet its cash flow needs through December 31, 2004.

5

There is also significant uncertainty as to whether AICI will be able to meet its cash flow needs. AICI has deferred interest payments on its Trust Preferred Securities (See Note 5 to the consolidated financial statements), as permitted by the trust agreement and indenture, and AICI has disputed or denied payment of certain other liabilities and commitments. Based upon current estimates management of the Company believes AICI would likely have the ability to meet its cash flow needs through December 31, 2004 assuming the NEDOI does not obtain an Order of Rehabilitation or an Order of Liquidation with respect to AIC. There can be no assurances considering the significant uncertainties that exist that AICI will have the ability to meet its cash flow needs through December 31, 2004. It is unlikely that AICI will be able to meet its long-term cash flow needs if either its short-term or long-term strategies are unsuccessful. If AICI is not able to meet its cash flow needs in the future, the Company will decide to take the course of action that is in the best interest of the Company based upon all relevant factors, which action may include filing bankruptcy.

Forward-looking information set forth herein does not take into account any impact from the various factors noted above which may affect future results. See “Uncertainties” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—General” for additional information regarding these events and factors.

Company Strategy

The Company has historically been an agricultural risk management company providing comprehensive insurance products (“Agricultural Segment”) and a provider of property and casualty insurance (“Property and Casualty Segment”). American Growers Insurance Company (“AGIC”), the Company’s wholly owned crop insurance subsidiary, was placed into rehabilitation by the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska on December 20, 2002. Effective as of December 20, 2002, AGIC and its subsidiaries ceased to be under the control of the Company and are not included as consolidated subsidiaries of the Company. Additionally, AGIC and its supporting crop operations (the “Agricultural Segment”) have been presented as discontinued operations. Operating results for previous periods of the Agricultural Segment were reclassified to discontinued operations. The remaining operations of the Company include AIC and AICI Capital Trust. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Restatement and Reclassification of Financial Statements” for a discussion regarding the continuing operations of the Property and Casualty Segment for financial statement purposes.

Management has not adopted or contemplated to adopt a plan of liquidation. Management’s current short-term business plan can be summarized as follows:

Unless these current short-term strategies are successful, the Company will not have the ability to implement any longer term strategies. The total focus continues to be on successfully accomplishing the above short-term strategies. If the Company is able to meet these short-term objectives, management may consider several strategies. These strategies may include commutation of reinsurance treaties, loss portfolio

6

transfers, unwinding of trust balances and related items, sale of active and/or shell subsidiaries and other options that may be available. The Company may be required to accomplish certain of these strategies to meet its short-term and long-term objectives. At this time, management is unable to determine if any of these strategies will be available and if so, under acceptable terms to both the Company and the NEDOI. As such, it is uncertain if the Company can achieve its short-term or long-term objectives (See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Overview” and “- Forward Looking Information”).

Organization

The Company historically underwrote its insurance products through two wholly owned insurance company subsidiaries: AGIC and AIC. The Company’s Agricultural Segment insurance operations were primarily conducted in AGIC and the Property and Casualty Segment insurance operations were primarily conducted in AIC.

AGIC was placed into rehabilitation by the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska on December 20, 2002. Effective as of December 20, 2002, AGIC and its subsidiaries ceased to be under the control of the Company and are not included as consolidated subsidiaries of the Company after that date. As the Company’s equity interest in AGIC and its subsidiaries is negative, the Company has reflected its investment in AGIC and its subsidiaries at zero as the Company is no longer responsible for AGIC’s net liabilities.

As of December 31, 2003 and 2002 the only remaining consolidated insurance company of AICI is AIC. The Director entered an administrative Order of Supervision with respect to AIC on December 20, 2002 and AIC currently is operating pursuant to that Order. AIC’s total statutory policyholders’ deficit was approximately $61.3 million and $75.0 million as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, and statutory net loss was $36.3 million, $14.8 million and $7.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The statutory deficit at December 31, 2003 and 2002 was significantly impacted by the non-admission under statutory accounting principles of pledged investments totaling approximately $57.5 million and $89.9 million, respectively.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has established risk-based capital (“RBC”) standards. RBC standards are designed to measure the acceptable level of capital an insurer should have, based on the inherent and specific risks of each insurer. As of December 31, 2003, AIC had negative statutory surplus, resulting in a RBC at the mandatory control level. Under the mandatory control level, the NEDOI may take such actions as necessary to place AIC under regulatory control under the Nebraska Insurers Supervision, Rehabilitation, and Liquidation Act. Since AIC is currently in run-off, the Director is permitted to allow AIC to continue its run-off under supervision of the NEDOI. While AIC is currently in supervision, the Director has the authority to increase regulatory control of AIC by requesting an appropriate court to enter an Order of Rehabilitation or an Order of Liquidation, with or without a change in the financial condition of AIC. The Company believes that an Order of Rehabilitation would have a significant negative impact on the Company and that an Order of Liquidation would have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company was incorporated in Ohio as National Fast Food Corp. in 1968, reincorporated in Delaware in 1969 and thereafter operated under the names NFF Corp. (1971 to 1973), Orange-co, Inc. (1973 to 1987), Stoneridge Resources, Inc. (1987 to 1992), and was renamed Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. in 1992.

7

Management

John E. Martin is Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors, and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Gary N. Thompson is Chief Financial Officer.

Business Segments

The Company historically had two segments, the Agricultural Segment and the Property and Casualty Segment. The Agricultural Segment is presented as discontinued operations in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. The only remaining segment is the Property and Casualty Segment.

Agricultural Segment - Discontinued

The principal lines of the Company’s Agricultural Segment were MPCI, supplemental coverages and named peril insurance. MPCI is a federally subsidized insurance program designed to encourage agricultural producers to manage their risk through the purchase of insurance policies. MPCI provides agricultural producers with yield coverage for crop damage from substantially all natural perils. CRC is an extension of the MPCI program that provides agricultural producers with protection from revenue loss caused by changes in crop prices, low yields, or a combination of the two. As used herein, the term MPCI includes CRC, unless the context indicates otherwise. For the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001, the Company had $-0-, $580 million and $698 million, respectively, of MPCI Gross Premiums.

The largest named peril crop insurance product offered by the Company was crop hail insurance which insures growing crops against damage resulting from hailstorms. The Company also sold a small volume of insurance against damage to specific crops from other named perils. None of the named peril products involve federal reinsurance or price subsidy participation. During 2003, 2002 and 2001, the Company’s gross premium from named peril crop insurance, including crop hail, was approximately $-0-, $57.6 million and $80.1 million, respectively.

On November 18, 2002 the Company announced that it signed a Non-Binding Letter of Intent setting forth the preliminary terms for the Company’s potential sale of certain crop insurance assets to Rain and Hail L.L.C. (“Rain and Hail”). On November 25, 2002 Rain and Hail announced “termination of further negotiations under the previously announced Non-Binding Letter of Intent because RMA (USDA Risk Management Agency) would not allow the transaction as set forth in the terms of the Non-Binding Letter of Intent.”

Subsequent to the RMA and Rain and Hail actions, the operations of the Agricultural Segment were discontinued and AGIC was placed in rehabilitation by the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska. In rehabilitation, AGIC and its subsidiaries ceased to be under the control of the Company and are not included as consolidated subsidiaries of the Company at December 31, 2003 and 2002. As the Company’s equity interest in AGIC and its subsidiaries is negative, the Company reflects its investment in AGIC and its subsidiaries at zero as the Company is no longer responsible for AGIC’s net liabilities. The Company does not expect to be impacted by the discontinued operations of the Agricultural Segment in the future.

8

Property and Casualty Segment

The Company’s Property and Casualty Segment primarily consists of general liability, commercial property, commercial casualty, inland marine and workers’ compensation coverages.

The Company announced several strategic decisions over the last several years which have significantly impacted the Property and Casualty Segment. During 1999, the Company ceased or reduced its underwriting in several product lines of the Property and Casualty Segment business. In September 1999, the Company sold its nonstandard automobile business, including Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Company (“Phoenix Indemnity”). In the first quarter of 2000 the Company transferred the renewal rights to all business previously produced and serviced by the Company’s Scottsdale, Arizona office and its “long haul” trucking business. During 2001 the Company ceased writing or sold all remaining Property and Casualty Segment business. Additionally, in 2001, as part of its strategy to exit the Property and Casualty Segment business, the Company sold two wholly owned insurance subsidiaries, Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company (“AIIC”) and Acceptance Casualty Insurance Company (“ACIC”).

As of December 31, 2003 and 2002 the only remaining consolidated insurance company of AICI is AIC. The Director entered an administrative Order of Supervision with respect to AIC on December 20, 2002 and AIC currently is operating pursuant to that Order. Under the Order of Supervision, AIC is required to pay all costs incurred by the Supervisor, AIC may not accept or renew any insurance business and may not perform any activities beyond those that are routine in the day-to-day conduct of its runoff business without prior approval of the Director or Supervisor. The Director currently has the authority to increase regulatory control of AIC by requesting an appropriate court to enter an Order of Rehabilitation or an Order of Liquidation, with or without a change in the financial condition of AIC. The Company believes that an Order of Rehabilitation would have a significant negative impact on the Company and that an Order of Liquidation would have a material adverse effect on the Company.

The Company continues to manage the run-off of the property and casualty business. Based upon the above, the Company expects the Property and Casualty Segment net premiums earned in 2004 to be minimal and be primarily comprised of adjustments related to audits and endorsements for policies expiring in 2002 and prior years. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Restatement and Reclassification of Financial Statements” for a discussion regarding the continuing operations of the Property and Casualty Segment for financial statement purposes.

Claims

As of May 1, 2001 the Company engaged Berkley Risk Administrators Company (“BRAC”) to manage the adjustment and completion of all remaining Property and Casualty Segment claims. BRAC has employed certain persons previously employed by the Company.

Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves

In the property and casualty insurance industry, it is not unusual for several years to elapse between the occurrence of an insured loss, the report of the loss to the insurer and the insurer’s payment of that loss. The liability for losses and loss adjustment expenses is estimated by management based on historical

9

patterns and expectations of claims reported and paid, losses which have occurred but which are not yet reported, trends in claim experience, information available on an industry-wide basis, changes in the Company’s claim handling procedures and premium rates and other factors. The Company’s lines of specialty insurance business are considered less predictable than standard insurance coverages. The effects of inflation are implicitly reflected in the Company’s loss reserves through the industry data utilized in establishing such reserves. The Company does not discount its reserves to estimated present value for financial reporting purposes.

During the 1990s, the Company continuously entered into many new markets or programs. Many of these programs were cancelled as a result of unsuccessful marketing or poor underwriting performance. In addition, the Company ceased writing or sold all of its remaining Property and Casualty Segment lines of business. The Company continues to be responsible for all claims prior to the exit or sale of the Property and Casualty Segment lines (referred to as the “Runoff Business”). During May 2001, the Company closed its claims department handling the Runoff Business and engaged a third-party administrator specializing in such runoff business to handle these Property and Casualty Segment claims.

In monitoring reserve adequacy the Company reviews historical data and other data and, as additional experience and data become available, revises estimates of reserves. These revisions result in increases or decreases to reserves for insured events of prior years. In 2003, 2002 and 2001 the Company increased its reserves through charges to earnings of $30.0 million, $20.4 million and $14.7 million, respectively, based upon its reestimation of liability for losses and loss adjustment expenses for prior accident years.

The $30.0 million charge in 2003 for unfavorable development of losses and loss adjustment expenses relating to prior years was primarily concentrated in the general liability line and the workers’ compensation lines of business. The $20.4 million charge in 2002 for prior years was primarily a result of unfavorable development of losses and loss adjustment expenses in the general liability and commercial multi-peril lines of business. The $14.7 million charge in 2001 for prior years was primarily a result of the unfavorable development of general liability losses and loss adjustment expenses in 1999 and prior accident years.

The Company continues to be exposed to general liability coverages provided to contractors in the State of California as a result of the California Supreme Court decision in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. Admiral Insurance Company (“Montrose”). In that decision, the Court adopted the “continuous trigger” theory of insurance coverage for third-party liability claims involving continuous, progressive or deteriorating bodily injury or property damages. Under this theory, the time of the insured’s act which allegedly caused the accident, event or condition resulting in a claim is largely immaterial. As long as the potential damages remain outstanding, all of the insured contractor’s or subcontractor’s successive insurance policies potentially may provide coverage. Thus, the Court’s Montrose decision created a new basis for coverage under years of previously issued policies. Beginning in 1996, the Company altered its underwriting criteria for construction risks and began requiring policy endorsements for these types of continuous exposures in order to avoid coverage for conditions which existed prior to the inception of the Company’s policies.

For the first time in 2002, and continuing in 2003, the Company received more than a de minimis number of asbestosis claims; it has disclaimed coverage for these claims. Also for the first time in 2002, and continuing in 2003, the Company received silicosis claims. The Company believes its silicosis exposure is limited by the few policies that were exposed and the related policy limits. The Company has

10

established a minimal reserve for each claim reported and a bulk reserve for unreported claims and loss adjustment expenses. Adverse future developments with respect to either of these newly reported exposures, however, could have a significant adverse impact on future results.

The liability estimate for losses and loss adjustment expenses established represents management’s best estimate based on currently available evidence, including an analysis prepared by an independent actuary engaged by the Company. Even with such extensive analyses, however, the Company believes its ultimate liability may vary significantly from such estimates.

The Company annually obtains an independent review of its loss reserving process and reserve estimates in connection with the annual audit of its financial statements by a professional actuary who is independent of the Company and its auditors.

The following table presents an analysis of the Company’s reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses, reconciling beginning and ending balances for the years ended December 31:

11

The following information contains claim information on the continuing and discontinued operations. The following table presents the development of balance sheet net loss reserves from calendar years 1993 through 2002. The top line of the table shows the loss reserves at the balance sheet date for each of the indicated years. These amounts are the estimates of losses and loss adjustment expenses for claims arising in all prior years that are unpaid at the balance sheet date, including losses that had been incurred but not yet reported to the Company. The middle section of the table shows the cumulative amount paid, expressed as a percentage of the initial reserve amount, with respect to previously recorded reserves as of the end of each succeeding year. The lower section of the table shows the re-estimated amount, expressed as a percentage of the initial reserve amount, of the previously recorded reserves based on experience as of the end of each succeeding year. The estimate changes as more information becomes known about the frequency and severity of claims for individual years. The “Net cumulative redundancy (deficiency)” caption represents the aggregate percentage increase (decrease) in the initial reserves estimated. It should be noted that the table presents the “run off” of balance sheet reserves, rather than accident or policy year loss development. The Company computes the cumulative redundancy (deficiency) annually on a calendar year basis.

The establishment of reserves is an inherently uncertain process. The Company’s property and casualty coverages are in specialty areas of business that may involve greater risks than standard property and casualty lines. These risk components may make more difficult the task of estimating reserves for losses, and cause the Company’s underwriting results to fluctuate. Further, conditions and trends that have affected the development of loss reserves in the past may not necessarily occur in the future. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to extrapolate future redundancies or deficiencies based on this information.

12