Loss contingencies, reasonably possible pretax loss exposure in excess of the amount accrued

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements  
may be other disclosed matters for which a loss is probable or reasonably possible, but such an estimate is not possible. Disclosure of the estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss above the amount accrued, if any, for any individual matter would only be considered when there have been sufficient legal and factual developments such that the Company’s ability to resolve the matter would not be impaired by the disclosure of the individual estimate.The Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued, if any, for the disclosed matters where such an estimate is possible is zero to $178 million, pre-tax. This disclosure is not an indication of expected loss, if any. Under accounting guidance, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” This estimate is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimate will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. The estimate does not include matters or losses for which an estimate is not possible. Therefore, this estimate represents an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure. Information is provided below regarding the nature of all of the disclosed matters and, where specified, the amount, if any, of plaintiff claims associated with these loss contingencies.Due to the complexity and scope of the matters disclosed in the “Claims related proceedings” and “Other proceedings” subsections below and the many uncertainties that exist, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted and in the Company’s judgment, a loss, in excess of amounts accrued, if any, is not probable. In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these matters, the ultimate liability may be in excess of amounts currently accrued, if any, and may be material to the Company’s operating results or cash flows for a particular quarterly or annual period. However, based on information currently known to it, management believes that the ultimate outcome of all matters described below, as they are resolved over time, is not likely to have a material effect on the financial position of the Company. Claims related proceedings The Company is managing various disputes in Florida that raise challenges to the Company’s practices, processes, and procedures relating to claims for personal injury protection benefits under Florida auto policies. Medical providers continue to pursue litigation under various theories that challenge the amounts that the Company pays under the personal injury protection coverage, seeking additional benefit payments, as well as applicable interest, penalties and fees. There is a pending putative class action, Revival Chiropractic v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al. (M.D. Fla., filed January 2019; appeal pending, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals), where the federal district court denied class certification and plaintiff’s request to file a renewed motion for class certification. In Revival, on June 2, 2022, the 11th Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court Allstate’s appeal of the federal district court’s interpretation of the state personal injury protection statute. The 11th Circuit is holding determination on plaintiff’s class certification appeal pending the outcome of the Florida Supreme Court certification. The Company is also defending litigation involving individual plaintiffs. The Company is defending putative class actions in various courts that raise challenges to the Company’s depreciation practices in homeowner property claims. In these lawsuits, plaintiffs generally allege that, when calculating actual cash value, the costs of “non-materials” such as labor, general contractor’s overhead and profit, and sales tax should not be subject to depreciation. The Company is currently defending the following lawsuits on this issue: Perry v. Allstate Indemnity Company, et al. (N.D. Ohio, filed May 2016); Lado v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (S.D. Ohio, filed March 2020); Maniaci v. Allstate Insurance Company (N.D. Ohio, filed March 2020); Ferguson-Luke et al. v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (N.D. Ohio, filed April 2020); Clark v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (Circuit Court of Independence Co., Ark., filed February 2016); Mitchell, et al. v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, et al. (S.D. Ala., filed August 2021); Sims, et al. v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, et al. (W.D. Tex. filed June 2022); and Thompson, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company (Circuit Court of Cole Co., Mo. filed June 2022). No classes have been certified in any of these matters. A settlement-in-principle has been reached in Thaxton v. Allstate Indemnity Company (Madison Co., Ill., filed July 2020) and Hester v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company (St. Clair Co., Ill. filed June 2020). The Company is defending putative class actions pending in multiple states alleging that the Company underpays total loss vehicle physical damage claims on auto policies. The allegedly systematic underpayments result from one or more of the following theories: (a) the third party valuation tool used by the Company as part of a comprehensive adjustment process is allegedly flawed, biased, or contrary to applicable law; (b) the Company allegedly does not pay sales tax, title fees, registration fees, and/or other specified fees that are allegedly mandatory under policy language or state legal authority; or (c) after paying for the value of the loss vehicle, then the Company allegedly is not entitled to retain the residual salvage value, and the Company allegedly must pay salvage value to the owner (or if the loss vehicle is retained by the owner, then the Company allegedly may not apply any offset for the salvage value).The following cases are currently pending against the Company: Olberg v. Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, and CCC Information Services, Inc. (W.D. Wash., filed April 2018); Bloomgarden v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance 40 www.allstate.com
