UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D. C. 20549

FORM 10-K

 

 

The Chubb Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

New Jersey		13-2595722
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
15 Mountain View Road Warren, New Jersey		07059
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)
(908) 903-2000 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
(Title of each class)		(Name of each exchange on which registered)
Common Stock, par value $1 per share		New York Stock Exchange
Series B Participating Cumulative		New York Stock Exchange
Preferred Stock Purchase Rights
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
(Title of class)

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes [ü] No [  ]

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes [  ] No [ü]

 

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 was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ü] No [  ]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [ü] No [  ]

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the 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. [ü]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

Large accelerated filer [ü]		Accelerated filer [  ]
Non-accelerated filer [  ] (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company [  ]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes [  ] No [ü]

 

The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $15,687,942,111 as of June 30, 2010, computed on the basis of the closing sale price of the common stock on that date.

 

295,216,625

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of February 11, 2011

 

Documents Incorporated by Reference

 

Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement for the 2011 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.

 

 

CONTENTS

 

2

 

PART I.

 

 

General

 

The Chubb Corporation (Chubb) was incorporated as a business corporation under the laws of the State of New Jersey in June 1967. Chubb and its subsidiaries are referred to collectively as the Corporation. Chubb is a holding company for a family of property and casualty insurance companies known informally as the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (the P&C Group). Since 1882, the P&C Group has provided property and casualty insurance to businesses and individuals around the world. According to A.M. Best, the P&C Group is the 12th largest U.S. property and casualty insurance group based on 2009 net written premiums.

 

At December 31, 2010, the Corporation had total assets of $50 billion and shareholders’ equity of $16 billion. Revenues, income before income tax and assets for each operating segment for the three years ended December 31, 2010 are included in Note (14) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. The Corporation employed approximately 10,100 persons worldwide on December 31, 2010.

 

The Corporation’s principal executive offices are located at 15 Mountain View Road, Warren, New Jersey 07059, and our telephone number is (908) 903-2000.

 

The Corporation’s Internet address is www.chubb.com. The Corporation’s annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are available free of charge on this website as soon as reasonably practicable after they have been electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Chubb’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, charters of certain key committees of its Board of Directors, Restated Certificate of Incorporation, By-Laws, Code of Business Conduct and Code of Ethics for CEO and Senior Financial Officers are also available on the Corporation’s website or by writing to the Corporation’s Corporate Secretary.

 

Property and Casualty Insurance

 

The P&C Group is divided into three strategic business units. Chubb Personal Insurance offers coverage of fine homes, automobiles and other personal possessions along with options for high limits of personal liability coverage. Chubb Personal Insurance also provides supplemental accident and health insurance in niche markets. Chubb Commercial Insurance offers a full range of commercial insurance products, including coverage for multiple peril, casualty, workers’ compensation and property and marine. Chubb Commercial Insurance is known for writing niche business, where our expertise can add value for our agents, brokers and policyholders. Chubb Specialty Insurance offers a wide variety of specialized professional liability products for privately and publicly owned companies, financial institutions, professional firms and healthcare organizations. Chubb Specialty Insurance also includes our surety business.

 

The P&C Group provides insurance coverages principally in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and parts of Latin America and Asia. Revenues of the P&C Group by geographic area for the three years ended December 31, 2010 are included in Note (14) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

The principal members of the P&C Group are Federal Insurance Company (Federal), Pacific Indemnity Company (Pacific Indemnity), Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. (Executive Risk Indemnity), Great Northern Insurance Company (Great Northern), Vigilant Insurance Company (Vigilant), Chubb National Insurance Company (Chubb National), Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company (Chubb Indemnity), Chubb Custom Insurance Company, Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company (Executive Risk Specialty), Northwestern Pacific Indemnity Company, Texas Pacific Indemnity Company (Texas Pacific Indemnity) and Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey (Chubb New Jersey) in the United States, as well as Chubb Atlantic Indemnity Ltd. (a Bermuda company), Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SE, Chubb Capital Ltd. (a United Kingdom company),

3

Chubb Insurance Company of Australia Limited, Chubb Argentina de Seguros, S.A., Chubb Insurance (China) Company Ltd. and Chubb do Brasil Companhia de Seguros.

 

Chubb & Son, a division of Federal, is the manager of Pacific Indemnity, Executive Risk Indemnity, Great Northern, Vigilant, Chubb National, Chubb Indemnity, Executive Risk Specialty, Texas Pacific Indemnity and Chubb New Jersey. Chubb & Son also provides certain services to other members of the P&C Group. Acting subject to the supervision and control of the boards of directors of the members of the P&C Group, Chubb & Son provides day to day executive management and operating personnel and makes available the economy and flexibility inherent in the common operation of a group of insurance companies.

 

Premiums Written

 

A summary of the P&C Group’s premiums written during the past three years is shown in the following table:

 

 

(a) Intercompany items eliminated.

 

The net premiums written during the last three years for major classes of the P&C Group’s business are included in the Property and Casualty Insurance — Underwriting Results section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A).

 

One or more members of the P&C Group are licensed and transact business in each of the 50 states of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Canada, Europe, Australia, and parts of Latin America and Asia. In 2010, approximately 75% of the P&C Group’s direct business was produced in the United States, where the P&C Group’s businesses enjoy broad geographic distribution with a particularly strong market presence in the Northeast. The five states accounting for the largest amounts of direct premiums written were New York with 12%, California with 8%, Texas with 5%, Florida with 4% and New Jersey with 4%. Approximately 11% of the P&C Group’s direct premiums written was produced in Europe and 5% was produced in Canada.

 

Underwriting Results

 

A frequently used industry measurement of property and casualty insurance underwriting results is the combined loss and expense ratio. The P&C Group uses the combined loss and expense ratio calculated in accordance with statutory accounting principles applicable to property and casualty insurance companies. This ratio is the sum of the ratio of losses and loss expenses to premiums earned (loss ratio) plus the ratio of statutory underwriting expenses to premiums written (expense ratio) after reducing both premium amounts by dividends to policyholders. When the combined ratio is under 100%, underwriting results are generally considered profitable; when the combined ratio is over 100%, underwriting results are generally considered unprofitable. Investment income is not reflected in the combined ratio. The profitability of property and casualty insurance companies depends on the results of both underwriting and investments operations.

 

The combined loss and expense ratios during the last three years in total and for the major classes of the P&C Group’s business are included in the Property and Casualty Insurance — Underwriting Operations section of MD&A.

 

Another frequently used measurement in the property and casualty insurance industry is the ratio of statutory net premiums written to policyholders’ surplus. At December 31, 2010 and 2009, the ratio for the P&C Group was 0.77 and 0.76, respectively.

4

Producing and Servicing of Business

 

The P&C Group does not utilize a significant in-house distribution model for its products. Instead, in the United States, the P&C Group offers products through independent insurance agencies and accepts business on a regular basis from insurance brokers. In most instances, these agencies and brokers also offer products of other companies that compete with the P&C Group. The P&C Group’s branch and service offices assist these agencies and brokers in producing and servicing the P&C Group’s business. In addition to the administrative offices in Warren and Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, the P&C Group has territory, branch and service offices throughout the United States.

 

The P&C Group primarily offers products through insurance brokers outside the United States. Local branch offices of the P&C Group assist the brokers in producing and servicing the business. In conducting its foreign business, the P&C Group mitigates the risks relating to currency fluctuations by generally maintaining investments in those foreign currencies in which the P&C Group has loss reserves and other liabilities. The net asset or liability exposure to the various foreign currencies is regularly reviewed.

 

Business for the P&C Group is also produced through participation in certain underwriting pools and syndicates. Such pools and syndicates provide underwriting capacity for risks which an individual insurer cannot prudently underwrite because of the magnitude of the risk assumed or which can be more effectively handled by one organization due to the need for specialized loss control and other services.

 

Reinsurance Ceded

 

In accordance with the normal practice of the insurance industry, the P&C Group cedes reinsurance to reinsurance companies. Reinsurance is ceded to provide greater diversification of risk and to limit the P&C Group’s maximum net loss arising from large risks or from catastrophic events.

 

A large portion of the P&C Group’s ceded reinsurance is effected under contracts known as treaties under which all risks meeting prescribed criteria are automatically covered. Most of the P&C Group’s treaty reinsurance arrangements consist of excess of loss and catastrophe contracts that protect against a specified part or all of certain types of losses over stipulated amounts arising from any one occurrence or event. In certain circumstances, reinsurance is also effected by negotiation on individual risks. The amount of each risk retained by the P&C Group is subject to maximum limits that vary by line of business and type of coverage. Retention limits are regularly reviewed and are revised periodically as the P&C Group’s capacity to underwrite risks changes. For a discussion of the P&C Group’s reinsurance program and the cost and availability of reinsurance, see the Property and Casualty Insurance — Underwriting Results section of MD&A.

 

Ceded reinsurance contracts do not relieve the P&C Group of the primary obligation to its policyholders. Thus, a credit exposure exists with respect to reinsurance recoverable to the extent that any reinsurer is unable to meet its obligations or disputes the liabilities assumed under the reinsurance contracts. The collectibility of reinsurance is subject to the solvency of the reinsurers, coverage interpretations and other factors. The P&C Group is selective in regard to its reinsurers, placing reinsurance with only those reinsurers that the P&C Group believes have strong balance sheets and superior underwriting ability. The P&C Group monitors the financial strength of its reinsurers on an ongoing basis.

5

Unpaid Losses and Loss Adjustment Expenses and Related Amounts Recoverable from Reinsurers

 

Insurance companies are required to establish a liability in their accounts for the ultimate costs (including loss adjustment expenses) of claims that have been reported but not settled and of claims that have been incurred but not reported. Insurance companies are also required to report as assets the portion of such liability that will be recovered from reinsurers.

 

The process of establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses is complex and imprecise as it must take into consideration many variables that are subject to the outcome of future events. As a result, informed subjective estimates and judgments as to our ultimate exposure to losses are an integral component of our loss reserving process.

 

The anticipated effect of inflation is implicitly considered when estimating liabilities for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses. Estimates of the ultimate value of all unpaid losses are based in part on the development of paid losses, which reflect actual inflation. Inflation is also reflected in the case estimates established on reported open claims which, when combined with paid losses, form another basis to derive estimates of reserves for all unpaid losses. There is no precise method for subsequently evaluating the adequacy of the consideration given to inflation, since claim settlements are affected by many factors.

 

The P&C Group continues to emphasize early and accurate reserving, inventory management of claims and suits, and control of the dollar value of settlements. The number of outstanding claims at year-end 2010 was approximately 2% higher than the number at year-end 2009. The number of new arising claims during 2010 was approximately 9% higher than in the prior year primarily due to a higher number of catastrophe claims.

 

Additional information related to the P&C Group’s estimates related to unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses and the uncertainties in the estimation process is presented in the Property and Casualty Insurance — Loss Reserves section of MD&A.

 

The table on page 7 presents the subsequent development of the estimated year-end liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, net of reinsurance recoverable, for the ten years prior to 2010.

 

The top line of the table shows the estimated net liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses recorded at the balance sheet date for each of the indicated years. This liability represents the estimated amount of losses and loss adjustment expenses for claims arising in all years prior to the balance sheet date that were unpaid at the balance sheet date, including losses that had been incurred but not yet reported to the P&C Group.

 

The upper section of the table shows the reestimated amount of the previously recorded net liability based on experience as of the end of each succeeding year. The estimate is increased or decreased as more information becomes known about the frequency and severity of losses for each individual year. The increase or decrease is reflected in operating results of the period in which the estimate is changed. The “cumulative deficiency (redundancy)” as shown in the table represents the aggregate change in the reserve estimates from the original balance sheet dates through December 31, 2010. The amounts noted are cumulative in nature; that is, an increase in a loss estimate that is related to a prior period occurrence generates a deficiency in each intermediate year. For example, a deficiency recognized in 2010 relating to losses incurred prior to December 31, 2000 would be included in the cumulative deficiency amount for each year in the period 2000 through 2009. Yet, the deficiency would be reflected in operating results only in 2010. The effect of changes in estimates of the liabilities for losses occurring in prior years on income before income taxes in each of the past three years is shown in the reconciliation of the beginning and ending liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses in the Property and Casualty Insurance — Loss Reserves section of MD&A.

6

 

ANALYSIS OF LOSS AND LOSS ADJUSTMENT EXPENSE DEVELOPMENT

 

7

 

The subsequent development of the net liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses as of year-ends 2000 through 2003 was adversely affected by substantial unfavorable development related to asbestos and toxic waste claims. The cumulative net deficiencies experienced related to asbestos and toxic waste claims were the result of: (1) an increase in the actual number of claims filed; (2) an increase in the estimated number of potential claims; (3) an increase in the severity of actual and potential claims; (4) an increasingly adverse litigation environment; and (5) an increase in litigation costs associated with such claims. For 2000, in addition to the unfavorable development related to asbestos and toxic waste claims, there was significant unfavorable development in the commercial casualty and workers’ compensation classes. For the years 2001 through 2003, in addition to the unfavorable development related to asbestos and toxic waste claims, there was significant unfavorable development in the professional liability classes — principally directors and officers liability and errors and omissions liability, due in large part to adverse loss trends related to corporate failures and allegations of management misconduct and accounting irregularities — and, to a lesser extent, commercial casualty and workers’ compensation classes. For the years 2004 through 2009, unfavorable development related to asbestos and toxic waste claims was more than offset by significant favorable development, primarily in the professional liability classes and more recently in the commercial casualty classes due to favorable loss trends in recent years and in the commercial property and homeowners classes due to lower than expected emergence of losses.

 

Conditions and trends that have affected development of the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses in the past will not necessarily recur in the future. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to extrapolate future redundancies or deficiencies based on the data in this table.

 

The middle section of the table on page 7 shows the cumulative amount paid with respect to the reestimated net liability as of the end of each succeeding year. For example, in the 2000 column, as of December 31, 2010 the P&C Group had paid $10,245 million of the currently estimated $12,435 million of net losses and loss adjustment expenses that were unpaid at the end of 2000; thus, an estimated $2,190 million of net losses incurred on or before December 31, 2000 remain unpaid as of December 31, 2010, approximately 40% of which relates to asbestos and toxic waste claims.

 

The lower section of the table on page 7 shows the gross liability, reinsurance recoverable and net liability recorded at the balance sheet date for each of the indicated years and the reestimation of these amounts as of December 31, 2010.

 

The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, net of reinsurance recoverable, reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) comprises the liabilities of U.S. and foreign members of the P&C Group as follows:

 

		December 31
		2010				2009
		(in millions)
U.S. subsidiaries		$	17,193			$	16,986
Foreign subsidiaries			3,708				3,800
		$	20,901			$	20,786

 

Members of the P&C Group are required to file annual statements with insurance regulatory authorities prepared on an accounting basis prescribed or permitted by such authorities (statutory basis). The difference between the liability for unpaid losses and loss expenses, net of reinsurance recoverable, reported in the statutory basis financial statements of the U.S. members of the P&C Group and such liability reported on a GAAP basis in the consolidated financial statements is not significant.

8

Investments

 

Investment decisions are centrally managed by investment professionals based on guidelines established by management and approved by the respective boards of directors for each company in the P&C Group.

 

Additional information about the Corporation’s investment portfolio as well as its approach to managing risks is presented in the Invested Assets section of MD&A, the Investment Portfolio section of Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk and Note (3) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

The investment results of the P&C Group for each of the past three years are shown in the following table:

		Average
		Invested				Investment				Percent Earned
Year		Assets(a)				Income(b)				Before Tax				After Tax
		(in millions)
2008		$	37,190			$	1,622				4.36	%			3.49	%
2009			36,969				1,549				4.19				3.39
2010			38,288				1,558				4.07				3.29

 

Competition

 

The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive both as to price and service. Members of the P&C Group compete not only with other stock companies but also with mutual companies, other underwriting organizations and alternative risk sharing mechanisms. Some competitors produce their business at a lower cost through the use of salaried personnel rather than independent agents and brokers. Rates are not uniform among insurers and vary according to the types of insurers, product coverage and methods of operation. The P&C Group competes for business not only on the basis of price, but also on the basis of financial strength, availability of coverage desired by customers and quality of service, including claim adjustment service. The P&C Group’s products and services are generally designed to serve specific customer groups or needs and to offer a degree of customization that is of value to the insured. The P&C Group continues to work closely with its distribution network of agents and brokers as well as customers and to reinforce with them the stability, expertise and added value the P&C Group’s products provide.

 

There are approximately 2,400 property and casualty insurance companies in the United States operating independently or in groups and no single company or group is dominant across all lines of business or jurisdictions. However, the relatively large size and underwriting capacity of the P&C Group provide it opportunities not available to smaller companies.

 

Regulation and Premium Rates

 

Chubb is a holding company with subsidiaries primarily engaged in the property and casualty insurance business. In the United States, Chubb and the companies within the P&C Group are subject to regulation by certain states as members of an insurance holding company system. All states have enacted legislation that regulates insurance holding company systems such as the Corporation. This legislation generally provides that each insurance company in the system is required to register with the department of insurance of its state of domicile and furnish information concerning the operations of companies within the holding company system that may materially affect the operations, management or financial condition of the insurers within the system. All transactions within a holding company system affecting insurers must be fair and equitable. Notice to the insurance commissioners is required prior to the consummation of transactions affecting the ownership or control of an insurer and of certain material transactions between an insurer and any person in its holding company system and, in addition, certain of such transactions cannot be consummated without the commissioners’ prior approval.

9

Companies within the P&C Group are subject to regulation and supervision in the respective states in which they do business. In general, such regulation is designed to protect the interests of policyholders, and not necessarily the interests of insurers, their shareholders and other investors. The extent of such regulation varies but generally has its source in statutes that delegate regulatory, supervisory and administrative powers to a department of insurance.

 

State insurance departments impose regulations that, among other things, establish the standards of solvency that must be met and maintained. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has a risk-based capital requirement for property and casualty insurance companies. The risk-based capital formula is used by all state regulatory authorities to identify insurance companies that may be undercapitalized and that merit further regulatory attention. The formula prescribes a series of risk measurements to determine a minimum capital amount for an insurance company, based on the profile of the individual company. The ratio of a company’s actual policyholders’ surplus to its minimum capital requirement will determine whether any state regulatory action is required. At December 31, 2010, each member of the P&C Group had more than sufficient capital to meet the risk-based capital requirement. The NAIC periodically reviews the risk-based capital formula and changes to the formula could be considered in the future. The NAIC recently has undertaken a Solvency Modernization Initiative focused on updating the U.S. insurance solvency regulation framework, including capital requirements, governance and risk management, group supervision, accounting and financial reporting and reinsurance.

 

State insurance departments also administer other aspects of insurance regulation and supervision that affect the P&C Group’s operations including: the licensing of insurers and their agents; restrictions on insurance policy terminations; unfair trade practices; the nature of and limitations on investments; premium rates; restrictions on the size of risks that may be insured under a single policy; deposits of securities for the benefit of policyholders; approval of policy forms; periodic examinations of the affairs of insurance companies; annual and other reports required to be filed on the financial condition of companies or for other purposes; limitations on dividends to policyholders and shareholders; and the adequacy of provisions for unearned premiums, unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, both reported and unreported, and other liabilities.

 

Regulatory requirements applying to premium rates vary from state to state, but generally provide that rates cannot be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory. In many states, these regulatory requirements can impact the P&C Group’s ability to change rates, particularly with respect to personal lines products such as automobile and homeowners insurance, without prior regulatory approval. For example, in certain states there are measures that limit the use of catastrophe models or credit scoring in ratemaking and, at times, some states have adopted premium rate freezes or rate rollbacks. State limitations on the ability to cancel or nonrenew certain policies also can affect the P&C Group’s ability to charge adequate rates.

 

Subject to legislative and regulatory requirements, the P&C Group’s management determines the prices charged for its policies based on a variety of factors including loss and loss adjustment expense experience, inflation, anticipated changes in the legal environment, both judicial and legislative, and tax law and rate changes. Methods for arriving at prices vary by type of business, exposure assumed and size of risk. Underwriting profitability is affected by the accuracy of these assumptions, by the willingness of insurance regulators to approve changes in those rates that they control and by certain other matters, such as underwriting selectivity and expense control.

 

In all states, insurers authorized to transact certain classes of property and casualty insurance are required to become members of an insolvency fund. In the event of the insolvency of a licensed insurer writing a class of insurance covered by the fund in the state, companies in the P&C Group, together with the other fund members, are assessed in order to provide the funds necessary to pay certain claims against the insolvent insurer. Generally, fund assessments are proportionately based on the members’ written premiums for the classes of insurance written by the insolvent insurer. In certain states, the P&C Group can recover a portion of these assessments through premium tax offsets or policyholder surcharges. In 2010, assessments of the members of the P&C Group were insignificant. The amount of future assessments cannot be reasonably estimated and can vary significantly from year to year.

10

Insurance regulation in certain states requires the companies in the P&C Group, together with other insurers operating in the state, to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations, which are mechanisms that generally provide applicants with various basic insurance coverages when they are not available in voluntary markets. Such mechanisms are most prevalent for automobile and workers’ compensation insurance, but a majority of states also mandate that insurers, such as the P&C Group, participate in Fair Plans or Windstorm Plans, which offer basic property coverages to insureds where not otherwise available. Some states also require insurers to participate in facilities that provide homeowners, crime and other classes of insurance where periodic market constrictions may occur. Participation is based upon the amount of a company’s voluntary written premiums in a particular state for the classes of insurance involved. These involuntary market plans generally are underpriced and produce unprofitable underwriting results.

 

In several states, insurers, including members of the P&C Group, participate in market assistance plans. Typically, a market assistance plan is voluntary, of limited duration and operates under the supervision of the insurance commissioner to provide assistance to applicants unable to obtain commercial and personal liability and property insurance. The assistance may range from identifying sources where coverage may be obtained to pooling of risks among the participating insurers. A few states require insurers, including members of the P&C Group, to purchase reinsurance from a mandatory reinsurance fund.

 

Although the federal government and its regulatory agencies generally do not directly regulate the business of insurance, federal initiatives often have an impact on the business in a variety of ways. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law in July 2010, two new federal government bodies, the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), were created which may impact the regulation of insurance. Although the FIO is prohibited from directly regulating the business of insurance, it has authority to represent the U.S. in international insurance matters and has limited powers to preempt certain types of state insurance laws. The FIO also can recommend to the FSOC that it designate an insurer as an entity posing risks to U.S. financial stability in the event of the insurer’s material financial distress or failure. An insurer so designated by FSOC could be subject to Federal Reserve supervision and heightened prudential standards. Other current and proposed federal measures that may significantly affect the P&C Group’s business and the market as a whole include federal terrorism insurance, tort reform, natural catastrophes, corporate governance, ergonomics, health care reform including the containment of medical costs, medical malpractice reform and patients’ rights, privacy, e-commerce, international trade, federal regulation of insurance companies and the taxation of insurance companies.

 

Companies in the P&C Group are also affected by a variety of state and federal legislative and regulatory measures as well as by decisions of their courts that define and extend the risks and benefits for which insurance is provided. These include: redefinitions of risk exposure in areas such as water damage, including mold, flood and storm surge; products liability and commercial general liability; credit scoring; and extension and protection of employee benefits, including workers’ compensation and disability benefits.

 

Outside the United States, the extent of insurance regulation varies significantly among the countries in which the P&C Group operates, and regulatory and political developments in international markets could impact the P&C Group’s business. Some countries have minimal regulatory requirements, while others regulate insurers extensively. Foreign insurers in many countries are subject to greater restrictions than domestic competitors. In certain countries, the P&C Group has incorporated insurance subsidiaries locally to improve its competitive position. Regulators in many countries are working with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors to consider changes to insurance company solvency standards and group supervision of companies in a holding company system, including noninsurance companies. The European Union Solvency II directive will require regulated companies such as the P&C Group’s European operations to meet new requirements in relation to risk and capital management. Solvency II is scheduled to be effective January 1, 2013.

11

Legislative and judicial developments pertaining to asbestos and toxic waste exposures are discussed in the Property and Casualty Insurance — Loss Reserves section of MD&A.

 

Real Estate

 

The Corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary, Bellemead Development Corporation (Bellemead), and its subsidiaries were involved in commercial development activities primarily in New Jersey and residential development activities primarily in central Florida. The real estate operations are in run-off.

 

Chubb Financial Solutions

 

Chubb Financial Solutions (CFS) provided customized financial products, primarily derivative financial instruments, to corporate clients. CFS has been in run-off since 2003. Since that date, CFS has terminated early or run-off nearly all of its contractual obligations within its financial products portfolio. Additional information related to CFS’s operations is included in the Corporate and Other — Chubb Financial Solutions section of MD&A.

 

 

The Corporation’s business is subject to a number of risks, including those described below, that could have a material effect on the Corporation’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity and that could cause our operating results to vary significantly from period to period. References to “we,” “us” and “our” appearing in this Form 10-K should be read to refer to the Corporation.

 

If our property and casualty loss reserves are insufficient, our results could be adversely affected.

 

The process of establishing loss reserves is complex and imprecise because it must take into consideration many variables that are subject to the outcome of future events. As a result, informed subjective estimates and judgments as to our ultimate exposure to losses are an integral component of our loss reserving process. Variations between our loss reserve estimates and the actual emergence of losses could be material and could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

A further discussion of the risk factors related to our property and casualty loss reserves is presented in the Property and Casualty Insurance — Loss Reserves section of MD&A.

 

The effects of emerging claim and coverage issues on our business are uncertain.

 

As industry practices and legal, judicial, social, environmental and other conditions change, unexpected or unintended issues related to claims and coverage may emerge. These issues may adversely affect our business by either extending coverage beyond our underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims. In some instances, these issues may not become apparent for some time after we have written the insurance policies that are affected by such issues. As a result, the full extent of liability under our insurance policies may not be known for many years after the policies are issued. Emerging claim and coverage issues could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

Catastrophe losses could materially and adversely affect our business.

 

As a property and casualty insurance holding company, our insurance operations expose us to claims arising out of catastrophes. Catastrophes can be caused by various natural perils, including hurricanes and other windstorms, earthquakes, severe winter weather and brush fires. Catastrophes can also be man-made, such as a terrorist attack. The frequency and severity of catastrophes are inherently unpredictable. It is possible that both the frequency and severity of natural and man-made catastrophic events will increase.

 

The extent of losses from a catastrophe is a function of both the total amount of exposure under our insurance policies in the area affected by the event and the severity of the event. Most catastrophes are restricted to relatively small geographic areas; however, hurricanes and earthquakes may produce significant damage over larger areas, especially those that are heavily populated.

12

We are exposed to natural and man-made catastrophe risks in both our U.S. and international operations. Catastrophe risks include hurricanes and cyclones along the coastlines of North America, the Caribbean Region, Latin America, Asia and Australia. Catastrophe risks also include winter storms, northeasters, thunderstorms, hail storms, tornadoes, flooding and other water damage, earthquakes, other seismic or volcanic eruption, wildfires, and terrorism that may occur in locations in and outside the United States where we insure properties.

 

We utilize proprietary and third party catastrophe modeling tools to assist us in managing our catastrophe exposures. These models rely on various methodologies and assumptions which are subjective and subject to uncertainty. Had the models utilized different methodologies and assumptions, the estimations of our catastrophe exposures would have been substantially different. Moreover, modeled loss estimates may be materially different from actual results.

 

Natural or man-made catastrophic events could cause claims under our insurance policies to be higher than we anticipated and could cause substantial volatility in our financial results for any fiscal quarter or year. Our ability to write new business could also be affected. Increases in the value and geographic concentration of insured property and the effects of inflation could increase the severity of claims from catastrophic events in the future. In addition, states have from time to time passed legislation that has the effect of limiting the ability of insurers to manage catastrophe risk, such as legislation limiting insurers ability to increase rates and prohibiting insurers from withdrawing from catastrophe-exposed areas.

 

As a result of the foregoing, it is possible that the occurrence of any natural or man-made catastrophic event could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. A further discussion of the risk factors related to catastrophes is presented in the Property and Casualty Insurance — Catastrophe Risk Management section of MD&A.

 

We cannot predict the impact that changing climate conditions, including legal, regulatory and social responses thereto, may have on our business.

 

Various scientists, environmentalists, international organizations, regulators and other commentators believe that global climate change has added, and will continue to add, to the unpredictability, frequency and severity of natural disasters (including, but not limited to, hurricanes, tornadoes, freezes, other storms and fires) in certain parts of the world. In response to this belief, a number of legal and regulatory measures as well as social initiatives have been introduced in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas and other carbon emissions which may be chief contributors to global climate change.

 

We cannot predict the impact that changing climate conditions, if any, will have on our results of operations or our financial condition. Moreover, we cannot predict how legal, regulatory and social responses to concerns about global climate change will impact our business.

 

We rely on pricing and capital models, but actual results could differ materially from the model outputs.

 

We employ various predictive modeling, stochastic modeling and/or forecasting techniques to analyze and estimate loss trends and the risks associated with our assets and liabilities. We utilize the modeled outputs and related analyses to assist us in making underwriting, pricing, reinsurance and capital decisions. The modeled outputs and related analyses are subject to numerous assumptions, uncertainties and the inherent limitations of any statistical analysis. Consequently, modeled results may differ materially from our actual experience. If, based upon these models or otherwise, we under price our products or underestimate the frequency and/or severity of loss events, our results of operations or financial condition may be adversely affected. If, based upon these models or otherwise, we over price our products or overestimate the risks we are exposed to, new business growth and retention of our existing business may be adversely affected which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

13

We may experience reduced returns or losses on our investments especially during periods of heightened volatility, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

The returns on our investment portfolio may be reduced or we may incur losses as a result of changes in general economic conditions, interest rates, real estate markets, fixed income markets, equity markets, alternative investment markets, credit markets, exchange rates, global capital market conditions and numerous other factors that are beyond our control.

 

The worldwide financial markets experience high levels of volatility during certain periods, which could have an increasingly adverse impact on the U.S. and foreign economies. The financial market volatility and the resulting negative economic impact could continue and it is possible that it may be prolonged, which could adversely affect our current investment portfolio, make it difficult to determine the value of certain assets in our portfolio and/or make it difficult for us to purchase suitable investments that meet our risk and return criteria. These factors could cause us to realize less than expected returns on invested assets, sell investments for a loss or write off or write down investments, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

A significant portion of our investment portfolio is invested in obligations of states, municipalities and political subdivisions (often referred to as municipal bonds). The recent financial market volatility and the resulting negative economic impact have resulted in actual or projected budget deficits for many municipal bond issuers. These deficits, combined with declining municipal tax bases and revenues, have raised concerns over the potential for an increased risk of default or impairment of municipal bonds. Such concerns, as well actual defaults or impairments, could adversely impact these investments in terms of volatility, liquidity and value.

 

Our investment portfolio includes commercial mortgage-backed securities, residential mortgage-backed securities, collateralized mortgage obligations and pass-through securities. Continuation of the prolonged stress in the U.S. housing market and/or financial market disruption could adversely impact these investments.

 

Our investment portfolio includes securities that may be more volatile than fixed maturity instruments and certain of these instruments may be illiquid.

 

Our investment portfolio includes equity securities and private equity limited partnership interests which may experience significant volatility in their investment returns and valuation. Moreover, our private equity limited partnership interests are subject to transfer restrictions and may be illiquid. If the investment returns or value of these investments decline, or if we are unable to dispose of these investments at their carrying value, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

Changes to federal and/or state laws could adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio.

 

A significant portion of our investment portfolio consists of tax exempt securities and we receive certain tax benefits relating to such securities based on current laws and regulations. Our portfolio has also benefited from certain other laws and regulations, including without limitation, tax credits (such as foreign tax credits). Federal and/or state tax legislation could be enacted that would lessen or eliminate some or all of the tax advantages currently benefiting us and could negatively impact the value of our investment portfolio.

 

We are exposed to credit risk in our business operations and in our investment portfolio.

 

We are exposed to credit risk in several areas of our business operations, including, without limitation, credit risk relating to reinsurance, co-sureties on surety bonds, policyholders of certain of our insurance products, independent agents and brokers, issuers of securities, insurers of certain securities and certain other counterparties relating to our investment portfolio.

 

With respect to reinsurance coverages that we have purchased, our ability to recover amounts due from reinsurers may be affected by the creditworthiness and willingness to pay of the reinsurers.

14

Although certain reinsurance we have purchased is collateralized, the collateral is exposed to credit risk of the counterparty that has guaranteed an investment return on such collateral.

 

It is customary practice in the surety business for multiple insurers to participate as co-sureties on large surety bonds, meaning that each insurer (each referred to as a co-surety) assumes its proportionate share of the risk and receives a corresponding percentage of the bond premium. Under these arrangements, the co-sureties’ obligations are joint and several. Consequently, if a co-surety defaults on its obligations, the remaining co-surety or co-sureties are obligated to make up the shortfall to the beneficiary of the surety bond even though the non-defaulting co-sureties did not receive the premium for that portion of the risk. Therefore, we are subject to credit risk with respect to the insurers with whom we are co-sureties on surety bonds.

 

In accordance with industry practice, when insureds purchase our insurance products through independent agents and brokers, they generally pay the premiums to the agent or broker, which in turn is required to remit the collected premium to us. In many jurisdictions, we are deemed to have received payment upon the receipt of the payment by the agent or broker, regardless of whether the agent or broker actually remits payment to us. As a result, we assume credit risk associated with amounts due from independent agents and brokers.

 

The value of our investment portfolio is subject to credit risk from the issuers and/or guarantors of the securities in the portfolio, other counterparties in certain transactions and, for certain securities, insurers that guarantee specific issuer’s obligations. Defaults by the issuer and, where applicable, an issuer’s guarantor, insurer or other counterparties with regard to any of such investments could reduce our net investment income and net realized investment gains or result in investment losses.

 

Our exposure to any of the above credit risks could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

The failure of the risk mitigation strategies we utilize could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

 

We utilize a number of strategies to mitigate our risk exposure, such as:

 

 

However, there are inherent limitations in all of these tactics and no assurance can be given that an event or series of events will not result in loss levels in excess of our probable maximum loss models, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. It is also possible that losses could manifest themselves in ways that we do not anticipate and that our risk mitigation strategies are not designed to address. Such a manifestation of losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

 

These risks may be heightened during difficult economic conditions such as those currently being experienced in the United States and elsewhere.

 

Reinsurance coverage may not be available to us in the future at commercially reasonable rates or at all.

 

The availability and cost of reinsurance are subject to prevailing market conditions that are beyond our control. No assurances can be made that reinsurance will remain continuously available to us in amounts that we consider sufficient and at rates that we consider acceptable, which would cause us to increase the amount of risk we retain, reduce the amount of business we underwrite or look for alternatives to reinsurance. This, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

15

Cyclicality of the property and casualty insurance industry may cause fluctuations in our results.

 

The property and casualty insurance business historically has been cyclical, experiencing periods characterized by intense price competition, relatively low premium rates and less restrictive underwriting standards followed by periods of relatively low levels of competition, high premium rates and more selective underwriting standards. We expect this cyclicality to continue. The periods of intense price competition in the cycle could adversely affect our financial condition, profitability or cash flows.

 

A number of factors, including many that are volatile and unpredictable, can have a significant impact on cyclical trends in the property and casualty insurance industry and the industry’s profitability. These factors include:

 

 

We cannot predict whether or when market conditions will improve, remain constant or deteriorate. Negative market conditions may impair our ability to write insurance at rates that we consider appropriate relative to the risk assumed. If we cannot write insurance at appropriate rates, our ability to transact business would be materially and adversely affected.

 

We may be unsuccessful in our efforts to sell new products and/or to expand our existing product offerings to new markets.

 

Our strategy for enhancing profitable growth includes new product initiatives as well as expanding existing product offerings to new markets. We may not be successful in these efforts, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. If we are successful, results attributable to these product offerings could be different than we anticipate and could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

Payment of obligations under surety bonds could adversely affect our future operating results.

 

The surety business tends to be characterized by infrequent but potentially high severity losses. The majority of our surety obligations are intended to be performance-based guarantees. When losses occur, they may be mitigated, at times, by recovery rights to the customer’s assets, contract payments, collateral and bankruptcy recoveries. We have substantial commercial and construction surety exposure for current and prior customers. In that regard, we have exposures related to surety bonds issued on behalf of companies that have experienced or may experience deterioration in creditworthiness. If the financial condition of these companies were adversely affected by the economy or otherwise, we may experience an increase in filed claims and may incur high severity losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

 

A downgrade in our credit ratings and financial strength ratings could adversely impact the competitive positions of our operating businesses.

 

Credit ratings and financial strength ratings can be important factors in establishing our competitive position in the insurance markets. There can be no assurance that our ratings will continue for any given period of time or that they will not be changed. If our credit ratings were downgraded in the future, we could incur higher borrowing costs and may have more limited means to access capital. In addition, a downgrade in our financial strength ratings could adversely affect the competitive position of our insurance operations, including a possible reduction in demand for our products in certain markets.

16

The inability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends in sufficient amounts would harm our ability to meet our obligations and to pay future dividends.

 

As a holding company, Chubb relies primarily on dividends from its insurance subsidiaries to meet its obligations for payment of interest and principal on outstanding debt obligations and to pay dividends to shareholders. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends in the future will depend on their statutory surplus, on earnings and on regulatory restrictions. We are subject to regulation by some states as an insurance holding company system. Such regulation generally provides that transactions between companies within the holding company system must be fair and equitable. Transfers of assets among affiliated companies, certain dividend payments from insurance subsidiaries and certain material transactions between companies within the system may be subject to prior notice to, or prior approval by, state regulatory authorities. The ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends is also restricted by regulations that set standards of solvency that must be met and maintained, that limit investments and that limit dividends to shareholders. These regulations may affect Chubb’s insurance subsidiaries’ ability to provide Chubb with dividends.

 

Our businesses are heavily regulated, and changes in regulation may reduce our profitability and limit our growth.

 

Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation and supervision in the jurisdictions in which they conduct business. This regulation is generally designed to protect the interests of policyholders, and not necessarily the interests of insurers, their shareholders or other investors. The regulation relates to authorization for lines of business, capital and surplus requirements, investment limitations, underwriting limitations, transactions with affiliates, dividend limitations, changes in control, premium rates and a variety of other financial and nonfinancial components of an insurance company’s business. Failure to comply with or to obtain appropriate authorizations and/or exemptions under any applicable laws and regulations could result in restrictions on our ability to do business or undertake activities that are regulated in one or more of the jurisdictions in which we conduct business and could subject us to fines and other sanctions.

 

Virtually all states in which we operate require us, together with other insurers licensed to do business in that state, to bear a portion of the loss suffered by some insureds as the result of impaired or insolvent insurance companies. In addition, in various states, our insurance subsidiaries must participate in mandatory arrangements to provide various types of insurance coverage to individuals or other entities that otherwise are unable to purchase that coverage from private insurers. A few states require us to purchase reinsurance from a mandatory reinsurance fund. Such reinsurance funds can create a credit risk for insurers if not adequately funded by the state and, in some cases, the existence of a reinsurance fund could affect the prices charged for our policies. The effect of these and similar arrangements could reduce our profitability in any given period or limit our ability to grow our business.

 

In recent years, the state insurance regulatory framework has come under increased scrutiny, including scrutiny by federal officials, and some state legislatures have considered or enacted laws that may alter or increase state authority to regulate insurance companies and insurance holding companies. Further, the NAIC and state insurance regulators are continually reexamining existing laws and regulations, specifically focusing on modifications to statutory accounting principles, interpretations of existing laws and the development of new laws and regulations. The NAIC recently has undertaken a Solvency Modernization Initiative focused on updating the U.S. insurance solvency regulation framework, including capital requirements, governance and risk management, group supervision, accounting and financial reporting and reinsurance. Any proposed or future legislation or NAIC initiatives, if adopted, may be more restrictive on our ability to conduct business than current regulatory requirements or may result in higher costs or increased capital requirements.

 

Although the federal government and its regulatory agencies generally do not directly regulate the business of insurance, federal initiatives often have an impact on the business in a variety of ways. Current and proposed federal measures that may significantly affect the P&C Group’s business and the market as a whole include federal terrorism insurance, systemic risk regulation, tort reform, natural

17

catastrophes, corporate governance, ergonomics, health care reform including containment of medical costs, medical malpractice reform and patients’ rights, privacy, e-commerce, international trade, federal regulation of insurance companies and the taxation of insurance companies. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law in July 2010, two new federal government bodies, the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), were created which may impact the regulation of insurance. Although the FIO is prohibited from directly regulating the business of insurance, it has authority to represent the U.S. in international insurance matters and has limited powers to preempt certain types of state insurance laws. The FIO also can recommend to the FSOC that it designate an insurer as an entity posing risks to U.S. financial stability in the event of the insurer’s material financial distress or failure. An insurer so designated by FSOC could be subject to Federal Reserve supervision and heightened prudential standards. If the Federal Reserve were to designate any of our insurance subsidiaries for supervision, it could place more restrictions on our ability to conduct business and may result in higher costs and increased capital requirements.

 

Our insurance subsidiaries also are subject to extensive regulation and supervision in jurisdictions outside the United States. Regulators in many countries are working with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors to consider changes to insurance company solvency standards and group supervision of companies in a holding company system, including noninsurance companies. The European Union Solvency II directive will require regulated companies such as the P&C Group’s European operations to meet new requirements in relation to risk and capital management. Solvency II is scheduled to be effective January 1, 2013. Such proposed or future legislation and regulatory initiatives in countries where we operate, if adopted, may be more restrictive on our ability to conduct business than current regulatory requirements or may result in higher costs or increased capital requirements.

 

Changes in accounting principles and financial reporting requirements may impact the manner in which we present our results of operations and financial condition.

 

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time have issued and may continue to issue new accounting and reporting standards or changes in the interpretation of existing standards. These new standards or changes in interpretation could have an effect on how we report our results of operations and financial condition in the future.

 

In October 2010, the FASB issued new guidance related to the accounting for costs associated with acquiring or renewing insurance contracts. The guidance identifies which costs relating to the successful acquisition of new or renewal insurance contracts should be capitalized. This guidance is effective for the Corporation for the year beginning January 1, 2012 and may be applied prospectively or retrospectively. We are in the process of assessing the effect that the implementation of the new guidance will have on the Corporation’s financial position and results of operations. The amount of acquisition costs we will defer under the new guidance will be less than the amount deferred under our current accounting practice. If prospective application is elected, net income in the year of adoption would be reduced as the amount of acquisition costs eligible for deferral under the new guidance would be lower. Amortization of the balance of deferred policy acquisition costs as of the date of adoption would continue over the period in which the related premiums are earned. If retrospective application is elected, deferred policy acquisition costs and related deferred taxes would be reduced as of the beginning of the earliest period presented in the financial statements with a corresponding reduction to shareholders’ equity.

 

Intense competition for our products could harm our ability to maintain or increase our profitability and premium volume.

 

The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive. We compete not only with other stock companies but also with mutual companies, other underwriting organizations and alternative risk sharing mechanisms. We compete for business not only on the basis of price, but also on the basis of financial strength, availability of coverage desired by customers and quality of service, including claim adjustment service. We may have difficulty in continuing to compete successfully on any of these bases in the future.

18

If competition limits our ability to write new business at adequate rates, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

 

We are subject to a number of risks associated with our business outside the United States.

 

A significant portion of our business is conducted outside the United States, including in Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe and Latin America. By doing business outside the United States, we are subject to a number of risks, including without limitation, dealing with jurisdictions, especially in emerging markets, that may lack political, financial or social stability and/or a strong legal and regulatory framework, which may make it difficult to do business and comply with local laws and regulations in such jurisdictions. Failure to comply with local laws in a particular jurisdiction or doing business in a country that becomes increasingly unstable could have a significant adverse effect on our business and operations in that market as well as on our reputation generally.

 

As part of our international operations, we engage in transactions denominated in currencies other than the United States dollar. To reduce our exposure to currency fluctuation, we attempt to match the currency of the liabilities we incur under insurance policies with assets denominated in the same local currency. However, in the event that we underestimate our exposure, negative movements in the United States dollar versus the local currency will exacerbate the impact of the exposure on our results of operations and financial condition.

 

We report the results of our international operations on a consolidated basis with our domestic business. These results are reported in United States dollars. A significant portion of the business we write outside the United States, however, is transacted in local currencies. Consequently, fluctuations in the relative value of local currencies in which the policies are written versus the United States dollar can mask the underlying trends in our international business.

 

The United States and other jurisdictions in which we operate have adopted various laws and regulations that may apply to the business we conduct outside of the United States, including those relating to antibribery and economic sanctions compliance. Although we have policies and controls in place that are designed to ensure compliance with these laws and regulations, it is possible that an employee or intermediary could fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations. In such event, we could be exposed to civil penalties, criminal penalties and other sanctions. In addition, such violations could damage our business and/or our reputation. Such civil penalties, criminal penalties, other sanctions and damage to our business and/or reputation could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

We are dependent on a distribution network comprised of independent insurance brokers and agents to distribute our products.

 

We generally do not use salaried employees to promote or distribute our insurance products. Instead, we rely on a large number of independent insurance brokers and agents. Accordingly, our business is dependent on the willingness of these brokers and agents to recommend our products to their customers. Deterioration in relationships with our broker and agent distribution network could materially and adversely affect our ability to sell our products, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

If we experience difficulties with outsourcing relationships, our ability to conduct our business might be negatively impacted.

 

We outsource certain business and administrative functions to third parties and may do so increasingly in the future. If we fail to develop and implement our outsourcing strategies or our third party providers fail to perform as anticipated, we may experience operational difficulties, increased costs and a loss of business that may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. By outsourcing certain business and administrative functions to third parties, we may be exposed to enhanced risk of data security breaches. Any breach of data security could damage our reputation and/or result in monetary damages, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

19

The occurrence of certain events could have a materially adverse effect on our systems and could impact our ability to conduct business effectively.

 

Our computer, information technology and telecommunications systems, which we use to conduct our business, interface with and rely upon third-party systems. Systems failures or outages could compromise our ability to perform business functions in a timely manner, which could harm our ability to conduct business and hurt our relationships with our business partners and customers. In the event of a disaster such as a natural catastrophe, an industrial accident, a blackout, a computer virus, a terrorist attack or war, our systems may be inaccessible to our employees, customers or business partners for an extended period of time. Even if our employees or third party providers are able to report to work, they might be unable to perform their duties for an extended period of time if our computer, information technology or telecommunication systems were disabled or destroyed. Our systems could also be subject to physical break-ins, electronic hacking, and subject to similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering. This may impede or interrupt our business operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

 

 

None.

 

 

The executive offices of the Corporation are in Warren, New Jersey. The administrative offices of the P&C Group are located in Warren and Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. The P&C Group maintains territory, branch and service offices in major cities throughout the United States and also has offices in Canada, Europe, Australia, Latin America and Asia. Office facilities are leased with the exception of buildings in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey and Simsbury, Connecticut. Management considers its office facilities suitable and adequate for the current level of operations.

 

 

As previously disclosed, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries have been involved in the investigations by various Attorneys General and other regulatory authorities of several states, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and certain non-U.S. regulatory authorities with respect to certain business practices in the property and casualty insurance industry including (1) potential conflicts of interest and anti-competitive behavior arising from the payment of contingent commissions to brokers and agents and (2) loss mitigation and finite reinsurance arrangements. In connection with these investigations, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries received subpoenas and other requests for information from various regulators. The Corporation has cooperated fully with these investigations. The Corporation has settled with several state Attorneys General and insurance departments all issues arising out of their investigations.

 

The Attorney General of Ohio on August 24, 2007 filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as several other insurers and one broker, as a result of the Ohio Attorney General’s business practices investigation. This action alleged violations of Ohio’s antitrust laws. On January 7, 2011, the Corporation settled with the Ohio Attorney General and this matter has been dismissed with prejudice. Although no other Attorney General or regulator has initiated an action against the Corporation, it is possible that such an action could be brought against the Corporation with respect to some or all of the issues that were the focus of the business practice investigations.

 

Individual actions and purported class actions arising out of the investigations into the payment of contingent commissions to brokers and agents have been filed in a number of federal and state courts. On August 1, 2005, Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (N.J. District Court). This action, brought against several brokers and insurers on behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker defendants, asserts claims under the Sherman Act, state law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) arising from the alleged unlawful use of contingent commission agreements. On September 28, 2007, the N.J. District Court

20

dismissed the second amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in its entirety. In so doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act and RICO claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and it dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims without prejudice because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their second amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit). On August 13, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the N.J. District Court decision and remanded the case back to the N.J. District Court for further proceedings. As a result of the Third Circuit’s decision, the plaintiffs’ state law claims and certain of the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act and RICO claims were reinstated against the Corporation. The Corporation and the other defendants have filed motions to dismiss the reinstated claims and the parties are awaiting the N.J. District Court’s decision.

 

Chubb and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named as defendants in other putative class actions relating or similar to the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have been filed in various state courts or in U.S. district courts between 2005 and 2007. These actions have been subsequently removed and ultimately transferred to the N.J. District Court for consolidation with the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation. These actions are currently stayed.

 

In the various actions described above, the plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants unlawfully used contingent commission agreements and conspired to reduce competition in the insurance markets. The actions seek treble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Corporation believes it has substantial defenses to all of the aforementioned legal proceedings and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

 

Information regarding certain litigation to which the P&C Group is a party is included in the Property and Casualty Insurance — Loss Reserves section of MD&A.

 

Chubb and its subsidiaries also are defendants in various lawsuits arising out of their business. It is the opinion of management that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s results of operations or financial condition.

 

Executive Officers of the Registrant

 

(a) Ages listed above are as of April 26, 2011.

 

(b) Date indicates year first elected or designated as an executive officer.

 

All of the foregoing officers serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors of the Corporation and have been employees of the Corporation for more than five years except for Mr. Spiro.

 

Before joining the Corporation in 2008, Mr. Spiro was an investment banker at Citigroup Global Markets Inc., where he served as a Managing Director in Citigroup’s financial institutions investment banking group.

21

PART II.

 

 

The common stock of Chubb is listed and principally traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the trading symbol “CB”. The following are the high and low closing sale prices as reported on the NYSE Composite Tape and the quarterly dividends declared per share for each quarter of 2010 and 2009.

 

 

 

At February 11, 2011, there were approximately 8,300 common shareholders of record.

 

The declaration and payment of future dividends to Chubb’s shareholders will be at the discretion of Chubb’s Board of Directors and will depend upon many factors, including the Corporation’s operating results, financial condition and capital requirements, and the impact of regulatory constraints discussed in Note (17)(e) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

The following table summarizes the stock repurchased by Chubb during each month in the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

 

 

 

22

Stock Performance Graph

 

The following performance graph compares the performance of Chubb’s common stock during the five-year period from December 31, 2005 through December 31, 2010 with the performance of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and the Standard & Poor’s Property & Casualty Insurance Index. The graph plots the changes in value of an initial $100 investment over the indicated time periods, assuming all dividends are reinvested.

 

Cumulative Total Return

Based upon an initial investment of $100 on December 31, 2005
with dividends reinvested

 

 

 

Our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may incorporate information by reference, including this Form 10-K. Unless we specifically state otherwise, the information under this heading “Stock Performance Graph” shall not be deemed to be “soliciting materials” and shall not be deemed to be “filed” with the SEC or incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

23

 

24

 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations addresses the financial condition of the Corporation as of December 31, 2010 compared with December 31, 2009 and the results of operations for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2010. This discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes and the other information contained in this report.

 

25

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

 

Certain statements in this document are “forward-looking statements” as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). These forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the PSLRA and include statements regarding our loss reserve and reinsurance recoverable estimates; asbestos and toxic waste liabilities and related developments; the number and severity of surety-related claims; the impact of changes to our reinsurance program in 2010 and the cost of reinsurance in 2011; the adequacy of the rates at which we renewed and wrote new business; premium volume and competition in 2011; property and casualty investment income during 2011; cash flows generated by our fixed income investments; currency rate fluctuations; estimates with respect to our credit derivatives exposure; the repurchase of common stock under our share repurchase program; our capital adequacy and funding of liquidity needs; the funding and timing of loss payments; and the redemption of our capital securities. Forward-looking statements are made based upon management’s current expectations and beliefs concerning trends and future developments and their potential effects on us. These statements are not guarantees of future performance. Actual results may differ materially from those suggested by forward-looking statements as a result of risks and uncertainties, which include, among others, those discussed or identified from time to time in our public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and those associated with:

 

 

 

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chubb assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking information set forth in this document, which speak as of the date hereof.

 

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES AND JUDGEMENTS

 

The consolidated financial statements include amounts based on informed estimates and judgments of management for transactions that are not yet complete. Such estimates and judgments affect the reported amounts in the financial statements. Those estimates and judgments that were most critical to the preparation of the financial statements involved the determination of loss reserves and the recoverability of related reinsurance recoverables and the evaluation of whether a decline in value of any investment is temporary or other than temporary. These estimates and judgments, which are discussed within the following analysis of our results of operations, require the use of assumptions about matters that are highly uncertain and therefore are subject to change as facts and circumstances develop. If different estimates and judgments had been applied, materially different amounts might have been reported in the financial statements.

27

OVERVIEW

 

The following highlights do not address all of the matters covered in the other sections of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations or contain all of the information that may be important to Chubb’s shareholders or the investing public. This overview should be read in conjunction with the other sections of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

 

28

 

 

A summary of our consolidated net income is as follows:

 

 

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE

 

A summary of the results of operations of our property and casualty insurance business is as follows:

 

29

Property and casualty income before tax was lower in 2010 than in 2009 due to lower underwriting income. The decrease in underwriting income in 2010 was primarily the result of a higher impact of catastrophes during 2010, offset in part by a modest increase in underwriting profitability excluding the impact of catastrophes in the current accident year. Investment income in 2010 was slightly higher than in 2009. Property and casualty income before tax was higher in 2009 than in 2008 due to higher underwriting income, offset in part by lower investment income. The increase in underwriting income in 2009 was primarily due to a substantially lower impact of catastrophes, offset in part by a lower amount of favorable prior year loss development and a slight reduction in underwriting profitability excluding the impact of catastrophes in the current accident year. The decrease in investment income in 2009 was due to lower yields, particularly on short term investments, as well as the effects of currency fluctuation on income from our non-U.S. investments.

 

The profitability of our property and casualty insurance business depends on the results of both our underwriting and investment operations. We view these as two distinct operations since the underwriting functions are managed separately from the investment function. Accordingly, in assessing our performance, we evaluate underwriting results separately from investment results.

 

Underwriting Operations

 

Underwriting Results

 

We evaluate the underwriting results of our property and casualty insurance business in the aggregate and also for each of our separate business units.

 

Net Premiums Written

 

Net premiums written amounted to $11.2 billion in 2010, $11.1 billion in 2009 and $11.8 billion in 2008.

 

Net premiums written by business unit were as follows:

 

 

Net premiums written increased by 1% in 2010 compared with 2009 and decreased by 6% in 2009 compared with 2008. Premiums in the United States, which represent about 74% of our total net premiums, decreased by 1% in 2010 and 6% in 2009. Premiums outside the U.S., expressed in U.S. dollars, increased by 9% in 2010 and decreased by 6% in 2009. In 2010, the increase in net premiums written outside the U.S. was largely attributable to the impact of the weaker U.S. dollar relative to several currencies in which we wrote business in 2010 compared to 2009. As a result, overall premium growth in 2010 benefited slightly from the impact of currency fluctuation on business written outside the U.S. In 2009, the decrease in net premiums written outside the U.S. was attributable to the impact of currency fluctuation due to the strength of the U.S. dollar. In 2010 and 2009, net premiums written outside the U.S. grew modestly when measured in local currencies.

 

Premium growth was adversely impacted in both 2010 and 2009 by the general downturn in the economy which began in 2008 and continued through 2010. The amounts of coverage purchased or the insured exposures, both of which are bases upon which we calculate the premiums we charge, were down slightly or were flat for many classes of business in 2010 compared to 2009. In 2009, the amounts of

30

coverage purchased or insured exposures were generally down in most classes of business compared to 2008. Also, in both 2010 and 2009, our ability to grow premiums was constrained by our emphasis on underwriting discipline in the highly competitive market environment. In 2010, the competitive environment placed pressure on renewal rates — overall renewal rates in the commercial and professional liability businesses were down slightly. In 2009, the competitive pressures were significant but renewal rates in the commercial and professional liability businesses increased slightly overall.

 

In 2010 and 2009, we retained a high percentage of our existing customers and renewed those accounts at what we believe are acceptable rates relative to the risks. The percentage of accounts we successfully retained on renewal was higher for most classes of business in 2010 compared with 2009. Obtaining desirable new business was a challenge in both years. The overall level of new business improved slightly in 2010 over 2009 levels, as a modest increase in new commercial business was offset to a small extent by a decline in new professional liability business. In 2010, the slow improvement in the economic environment and the highly competitive market continued to make it difficult to obtain new business. The overall level of new business was down in 2009 compared with 2008, consistent with the decrease in demand in nearly all classes of our business caused by the general economic downturn.

 

The highly competitive market is likely to continue in 2011. Although there were some signs during 2010 that the economy was improving, it remains uncertain whether the improvement will continue and will be sustained. Even if an economic recovery does occur, any resulting growth in premiums will lag any recovery that takes place. We expect our net written premiums will be flat or slightly higher in 2011 compared with 2010, assuming average foreign currency to U.S. dollar exchange rates in 2011 remain similar to 2010 year-end levels.

 

Reinsurance assumed net premiums written decreased by 62% in 2010 and 67% in 2009. This business has been in run-off since the sale of our ongoing reinsurance assumed business in December 2005.

 

Reinsurance Ceded

 

Our premiums written are net of amounts ceded to reinsurers who assume a portion of the risk under the insurance policies we write that are subject to the reinsurance. Most of our ceded reinsurance arrangements consist of excess of loss and catastrophe contracts that protect against a specified part or all of certain types of losses over stipulated amounts arising from any one occurrence or event. Therefore, unless we incur losses that exceed our initial retention under these contracts, we do not receive any loss recoveries. As a result, in certain years, we cede premiums to reinsurance companies and receive few, if any, loss recoveries. However, in a year in which there is a significant catastrophic event or a series of large individual losses, we may receive substantial loss recoveries. The impact of ceded reinsurance on net premiums written and net premiums earned and on net losses and loss expenses incurred for the three years ended December 31, 2010 is presented in Note (9) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

 

The most significant component of our ceded reinsurance program is property reinsurance. We purchase two types of property reinsurance: catastrophe and property per risk.

 

For property risks in the United States and Canada, we purchase catastrophe reinsurance in two forms. We purchase traditional catastrophe reinsurance, including our primary treaty which we refer to as our North American catastrophe treaty, as well as supplemental catastrophe reinsurance that provides additional coverage for our northeast United States exposures. We have also arranged for the purchase of multi-year, collateralized reinsurance coverage funded through the issuance of collateralized risk linked securities, known as catastrophe bonds.

 

Our North American catastrophe treaty has an initial retention of $500 million.

 

The combination of the North American catastrophe treaty and a portion of the catastrophe bond coverages generally provide coverage for United States and Canadian exposures of approximately 69% of losses (net of recoveries from other available reinsurance) between $500 million and $1.37 billion and 60% of losses between $1.37 billion and $1.65 billion. For catastrophe events in the northeastern part of the United States and in Florida, the combination of the North American catastrophe treaty, the supplemental catastrophe reinsurance and the catastrophe bond coverages provide additional coverages as discussed below.

31

The catastrophe bond coverages generally provide reinsurance coverage for specific types of losses in specific geographic locations. They are generally designed to supplement coverage provided under the North American catastrophe treaty. We currently have three catastrophe bond coverages in effect: a $250 million reinsurance arrangement that expires in April 2011 that provides coverage for homeowners-related hurricane losses in the northeastern part of the United States; a $200 million reinsurance arrangement that expires in March 2011 that provides coverage for homeowners and commercial exposures for loss events in the northeastern part of the United States (for losses occurring elsewhere in the continental United States or Canada, the coverage is limited to $55 million); and a $150 million reinsurance arrangement that expires in March 2012 that provides coverage for homeowners-related hurricane losses in Florida.

 

For catastrophic events in the northeastern part of the United States, the combination of the North American catastrophe treaty, the supplemental catastrophe reinsurance and certain catastrophe bond coverages provide additional coverage of approximately 40% of losses (net of recoveries from other available reinsurance) between $1.37 billion and $2.17 billion, approximately 90% of losses between $2.50 billion and $2.85 billion, and approximately 30% of homeowners-related hurricane losses between $1.47 billion and $2.30 billion.

 

For hurricane events in Florida, we have reinsurance from the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (FHCF), which is a state-mandated fund designed to reimburse insurers for a portion of their residential catastrophic hurricane losses. Our participation in this program limits our initial retention in Florida for homeowners-related losses to approximately $155 million and provides coverage of 90% of covered losses between approximately $155 million and $560 million. Additionally, certain catastrophe bond coverages provide coverage of approximately 50% of Florida homeowners-related hurricane losses between $850 million and $1.15 billion.

 

Our primary property catastrophe treaty for events outside the United States provides coverage of approximately 75% of losses (net of recoveries from other available reinsurance) between $100 million and $350 million.

 

In addition to catastrophe treaties, we also have a commercial property per risk treaty. This treaty provides up to approximately $800 million (depending upon the currency in which the insurance policy was issued) of coverage per risk in excess of our initial retention, which is generally between $25 million and $35 million.

 

In addition to our major property catastrophe and property per risk treaties, we purchase several smaller property treaties that only cover specific classes of business or locations having potential concentrations of risk.

 

Recoveries under our property reinsurance treaties are subject to certain coinsurance requirements that affect the interaction of some elements of our reinsurance program.

 

Our property reinsurance treaties generally contain terrorism exclusions for acts perpetrated by foreign terrorists, and for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological loss causes whether such acts are perpetrated by foreign or domestic terrorists.

 

After increasing somewhat in 2009, due to capacity restrictions for certain coverages in the market, reinsurance rates for property risks generally decreased in 2010. Consequently, the overall cost of our property reinsurance program was modestly lower in 2010 than in 2009. We do not expect the changes we made to our reinsurance program during 2010 to have a material effect on the Corporation’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity.

 

Our major, traditional property reinsurance treaties expire on April 1, 2011 and we are in the process of evaluating our 2011 property reinsurance program. Despite significant natural disaster losses to the industry in early 2010, lower than average hurricane-related catastrophe losses to the industry in 2010 lead us to expect that reinsurance rates for property risks will decrease somewhat in 2011. The final structure of our reinsurance program and amount of coverage purchased, including the mixture of traditional catastrophe reinsurance and collateralized reinsurance coverage funded through the issuance of collateralized risk linked securities, will be the determinants of our total reinsurance costs in 2011.

32

Profitability

 

The combined loss and expense ratio, expressed as a percentage, is the key measure of underwriting profitability traditionally used in the property and casualty insurance business. Management evaluates the performance of our underwriting operations and of each of our business units using, among other measures, the combined loss and expense ratio calculated in accordance with statutory accounting principles. It is the sum of the ratio of losses and loss expenses to premiums earned (loss ratio) plus the ratio of statutory underwriting expenses to premiums written (expense ratio) after reducing both premium amounts by dividends to policyholders. When the combined ratio is under 100%, underwriting results are generally considered profitable; when the combined ratio is over 100%, underwriting results are generally considered unprofitable.

 

Statutory accounting principles applicable to property and casualty insurance companies differ in certain respects from generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Under statutory accounting principles, policy acquisition and other underwriting expenses are recognized immediately, not at the time premiums are earned. Management uses underwriting results determined in accordance with GAAP, among other measures, to assess the overall performance of our underwriting operations. To convert statutory underwriting results to a GAAP basis, policy acquisition expenses are deferred and amortized over the period in which the related premiums are earned. Underwriting income determined in accordance with GAAP is defined as premiums earned less losses and loss expenses incurred and GAAP underwriting expenses incurred.

 

Underwriting results were highly profitable in each of the last three years. The combined loss and expense ratio for our overall property and casualty business was as follows:

 

 

The relatively low loss ratio in each of the last three years reflected the favorable loss experience which we believe resulted from our disciplined underwriting in recent years. Results in all three years benefited from favorable prior year loss development. For more information on prior year loss development, see “Property and Casualty Insurance-Loss Reserves, Prior Year Loss Development.” The loss ratio was higher in 2010 compared to 2009 due primarily to a higher impact of catastrophes, offset in part by a modest decrease in the current accident year loss ratio excluding catastrophes. The amount of favorable prior year loss development was slightly lower in 2010 compared with 2009. The loss ratio was lower in 2009 compared to 2008 due to a lower impact from catastrophes, offset in part by a lower amount of favorable prior year loss development and a slight increase in the current accident year loss ratio excluding catastrophes.

 

In 2010, the impact of catastrophes was $634 million, which represented 5.7 percentage points of the combined ratio. A significant portion of the catastrophe losses in 2010 related to numerous storms in the United States and, to a lesser extent, the earthquake in Chile. The impact of catastrophes was $91 million in 2009 and $607 million in 2008, which represented 0.8 percentage points and 5.1 percentage points, respectively, of the combined ratio. About $310 million of the catastrophe losses in 2008 related to Hurricane Ike, including our estimated share of an assessment from the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association.

 

We did not have any recoveries from our primary catastrophe reinsurance treaties during the three year period ended December 31, 2010 because there was no individual catastrophe for which our losses exceeded our retention under the treaties. Under a region-specific property catastrophe reinsurance treaty, we expect to recover about $60 million of our gross losses related to the 2010 earthquake in Chile.

33

Our expense ratio was higher in 2010 compared with 2009, which in turn was higher compared with 2008. The increase in 2010 was due to an increase in commissions and, to a lesser extent, overhead expenses increasing at a rate that exceeded the rate of growth of premiums written. Commissions were higher primarily outside the United States due, in part, to premium growth in classes of business with higher commission rates. The increase in 2009 was due primarily to an increase in commission rates in certain classes of business in the United States and, to a lesser extent, a decline in premiums written at a rate that exceeded the rate of reduction in our overhead expenses.

 

Review of Underwriting Results by Business Unit

 

Personal Insurance

 

Net premiums written from personal insurance, which represented 34% of our premiums written in 2010, increased by 5% in 2010 and decreased by 4% in 2009 compared with the respective prior years. Net premiums written for the classes of business within the personal insurance segment were as follows:

 

 

Personal automobile premiums increased in 2010, reflecting new business growth in select non-U.S. locations and the positive impact of currency fluctuation on business written outside the United States. Personal automobile premiums in the U.S. decreased slightly in 2010. Personal automobile premiums decreased in 2009 due to a highly competitive U.S. marketplace as well as the negative impact of currency fluctuation on business written outside the United States. Premiums for our homeowners business increased slightly in 2010 after decreasing in 2009. Premium growth in this business was constrained in both 2010 and 2009 due to the downturn in the U.S. economy that began in 2008, which resulted in a slowdown in new housing construction as well as lower demand for jewelry and fine arts policy endorsements. Premiums from our other personal business, which includes insurance for accident and health, excess liability and yacht, increased in 2010 after a decrease in 2009. The growth in 2010 was primarily in our non-U.S. accident business and approximately half was attributable to the effect of currency fluctuation. The decrease in 2009 was driven by our accident and health business, due primarily to the effect of currency fluctuation on the non-U.S. component of this business. The adverse impact of currency fluctuation in 2009 was offset in part by growth in the U.S. component of this business, due primarily to a select initiative. Excess liability premiums grew modestly in 2010 and were flat in 2009.

 

Our personal insurance business produced highly profitable underwriting results in each of the last three years, but less so in 2010 due to the impact of significantly higher homeowners catastrophe losses. A significant portion of the catastrophe losses in 2010 related to numerous storms in the United States in the first half of the year. The combined loss and expense ratios for the classes of business within the personal insurance segment were as follows:

 

34

Our personal automobile results were profitable in each of the past three years. Results in all three years benefited from modest favorable prior year loss development and generally lower claim frequency.

 

Homeowners results were highly profitable in each of the last three years, but less so in 2010 due to higher catastrophe losses. The impact of catastrophes accounted for 15.6 percentage points of the combined loss and expense ratio for this class in 2010 compared with 1.5 percentage points in 2009 and 7.8 percentage points in 2008. Results in 2009 and 2008 were adversely impacted by a higher frequency and severity of large non-catastrophe losses.

 

Other personal business produced profitable results in each of the past three years. Results for our excess liability business were highly profitable in 2010 and 2009 compared with near breakeven results in 2008. Prior year loss development for our personal excess liability business was favorable in 2010 and 2009 and not significant in 2008. Our yacht business was highly profitable in 2010 and 2009 compared with unprofitable results in 2008. Yacht results in 2008 were adversely affected by several large non-catastrophe losses as well as several losses related to Hurricane Ike. Our accident and health business produced profitable results in 2010 compared with breakeven results in 2009 and profitable results in 2008.

 

Commercial Insurance

 

Net premiums written from commercial insurance, which represented 42% of our premiums written in 2010, were flat in 2010 and decreased 7% in 2009 compared with the respective prior years. Net premiums written for the classes of business within the commercial insurance segment were as follows: