Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 847/402-5000

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 ý    No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes ý    No o

As of October 31, 2004, the registrant had 686,212,152 common shares, $.01 par value, outstanding.

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION
INDEX TO QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
September 30, 2004

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

1

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

2

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

1.     Basis of Presentation

        The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of The Allstate Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries, primarily Allstate Insurance Company, a property-liability insurance company with various property-liability and life and investment subsidiaries, including Allstate Life Insurance Company ("ALIC") (collectively referred to as the "Company" or "Allstate").

        The condensed consolidated financial statements and notes as of September 30, 2004, and for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004 and 2003 are unaudited. The condensed consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring accruals), which are, in the opinion of management, necessary for the fair presentation of the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods. These condensed consolidated financial statements and notes should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. The results of operations for the interim periods should not be considered indicative of results to be expected for the full year.

        To conform to the 2004 presentation, certain amounts in the prior year's condensed consolidated financial statements and notes have been reclassified.

        Non-cash investment exchanges and modifications, which primarily reflect refinancings of fixed income securities and mergers completed with equity securities, totaled $86 million and $51 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

Adopted accounting standards

Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") Staff Position Nos. FAS 106-1 and FAS 106-2, "Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003" ("FSP FAS 106-1" and "FSP FAS 106-2")

        In January 2004, the FASB issued FSP FAS 106-1 to address the accounting implications of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 ("Act"). The Act, which was signed into law on December 8, 2003, provides, among other things, a federal subsidy to plan sponsors who maintain postretirement health care plans ("plans") that provide prescription drug benefits and meet certain equivalency criteria. FSP FAS 106-1 allowed reporting entities to make a one-time election to defer recognizing the impact of the Act on their accumulated postretirement benefit obligation ("APBO") and net periodic postretirement benefit cost determined in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 106, "Employer's Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions" until sufficient guidance was developed to permit a determination of both the qualification for the subsidy and how to recognize the impact of the subsidy on its APBO and net periodic postretirement benefit cost. The Company adopted FSP FAS 106-1 in the first quarter of 2004 and elected to defer recognition of the accounting impact of the Act as information was not available to determine with sufficient certainty whether the Company's plans meet the equivalency criteria, and if so, how to recognize the impact of the subsidy on its APBO and net periodic postretirement benefit cost.

        In May 2004, the FASB issued FSP FAS 106-2, which supercedes FSP FAS 106-1, to provide guidance on accounting for the effects of the Act. FSP FAS 106-2, which the Company adopted in the third quarter of 2004, requires reporting entities that elected deferral under FSP FAS 106-1 and are able to determine if their plans are actuarially equivalent to recognize the impact of the Act no later than the first interim or annual reporting period beginning after June 15, 2004. In July 2004, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") issued proposed regulations for the Act, including three different proposals for the determination of actuarial equivalence. Depending on which proposal is adopted, the Company's plans may not meet the actuarial equivalence criteria. As a result, the Company is currently unable to determine if its plans are actuarially equivalent. Accordingly, the Company's measurement of its APBO and net periodic postretirement benefit cost do not reflect any amount associated with the subsidy. Once the Company is able to determine if its plans are actuarially equivalent, it will estimate the impact of the Act on its APBO and net periodic postretirement benefit cost, neither of which is expected to be material to the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations or Financial Position.

4

Statement of Position No. 03-1, "Accounting and Reporting by Insurance Enterprises for Certain Nontraditional Long-Duration Contracts and for Separate Accounts" ("SOP 03-1")

        On January 1, 2004, the Company adopted SOP 03-1. The major provisions of the SOP affecting the Company require:

•

Establishment of reserves primarily related to death benefit and income benefit guarantees provided under variable annuity contracts;



•

Deferral of sales inducements that meet certain criteria, and amortization using the same method used for deferred policy acquisition costs ("DAC"); and



•

Reporting and measuring assets and liabilities of certain separate accounts products as investments and contractholder funds rather than as separate accounts assets and liabilities when specified criteria are present.

Effects of adoption

        The cumulative effect of the change in accounting principle from implementing SOP 03-1 was a loss of $175 million, after-tax ($269 million, pre-tax). It was comprised of an increase in benefits reserves (primarily for variable annuity contracts) of $145 million, pre-tax, and a reduction in DAC and deferred sales inducements ("DSI") of $124 million, pre-tax.

        The SOP requires consideration of a range of potential results to estimate the cost of variable annuity death benefits and income benefits, which generally necessitates the use of stochastic modeling techniques. To maintain consistency with the assumptions used in the establishment of reserves for variable annuity guarantees, the Company utilized the results of this stochastic modeling to estimate expected gross profits, which form the basis for determining the amortization of DAC and DSI. This new modeling approach resulted in a lower estimate of expected gross profits, and therefore resulted in a write-down of DAC and DSI.

        In 2004, DSI and related amortization is classified within the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position and Operations as other assets and interest credited to contractholder funds, respectively. The amounts are provided below.

        The Company reclassified $204 million of separate accounts assets and liabilities to investments and contractholder funds, respectively.

Liabilities for contract guarantees

        The Company offers various guarantees to variable contractholders including a return of no less than (a) total deposits made on the contract less any customer withdrawals, (b) total deposits made on the contract less any customer withdrawals plus a minimum return or (c) the highest contract value on a specified anniversary date minus any customer withdrawals following the contract anniversary. These guarantees include benefits that are payable in the event of death (death benefits), upon annuitization (income benefits), or at specified dates during the accumulation period (accumulation benefits). To manage the risk associated with a portion of its minimum guaranteed death and income benefits, the Company acquired reinsurance for policies issued prior to January 1, 2000. Additionally, the Company hedges death benefits for substantially all contracts issued since January 1, 2003 and accumulation benefits for all contracts issued.

        The table below presents information regarding the Company's variable contracts with guarantees. The Company's variable annuity contracts may offer more than one type of guarantee in each contract; therefore, the sum of amounts listed exceeds the total account balances of variable annuity contracts' separate accounts with guarantees.

5

(1)

Defined as the current guaranteed minimum death benefit in excess of the current account balance at the balance sheet date.

(2)

Defined as the present value of the minimum guaranteed annuity payments determined in accordance with the terms of the contract in excess of the current account balance.

(3)

Defined as the present value of the guaranteed minimum accumulation balance in excess of the current account balance.

        Account balances of variable contracts' separate accounts with guarantees were invested as follows:

        The following table summarizes the liabilities for guarantees:

(1)

Included in the total liability balance are reserves for variable annuity death benefits of $81 million, variable annuity income benefits of $17 million, variable annuity accumulation benefits of $1 million and other guarantees of $43 million.

        The liability for death and income benefit guarantees is established equal to a benefit ratio multiplied by the cumulative contract charges earned, plus accrued interest less contract benefit payments. The benefit ratio is calculated as the estimated present value of all expected contract benefits divided by the present value of all expected contract charges. For guarantees related to death benefits, benefits represent the current guaranteed minimum death benefit payments in excess of the current account balance. For guarantees related to income benefits, benefits represent the present value of the minimum guaranteed annuity benefits in excess of the current account balance.

6

        Projected benefits and contract charges used in determining the liability for guarantees are developed using models and stochastic scenarios that are also used in the development of estimated expected gross profits. Underlying assumptions for the liability related to income benefits include assumed future annuitization elections based on factors such as the extent of benefit to the potential annuitant, eligibility conditions and the annuitant's attained age. The liability for guarantees will be re-evaluated periodically, and adjustments will be made to the liability balance through a charge or credit to life and annuity contract benefits.

        Guarantees related to accumulation benefits are considered to be derivative financial instruments; therefore, the liability for accumulation benefits is established based on its fair value.

Deferred sales inducements

        Costs related to sales inducements offered on sales to new customers, principally on investment contracts and primarily in the form of additional credits to the customer's account value or enhancements to interest credited for a specified period, which are beyond amounts currently being credited to existing contracts, are deferred and recorded as other assets. All other sales inducements are expensed as incurred and included in interest credited to contractholder funds on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. DSI is amortized to income using the same methodology and assumptions as DAC and is included in interest credited to contractholder funds. DSI is periodically reviewed for recoverability and written down when necessary.

        DSI activity for the nine months ended September 30, 2004 was as follows:

Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 03-1, "The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments" ("EITF 03-1") and FSP EITF 03-1-1, "Effective Date of Paragraphs 10-20 of EITF Issue No. 03-1, The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments" ("FSP EITF 03-1-1")

        In March 2004, the Emerging Issues Task Force ("EITF") reached a final consensus on EITF 03-1, which was to be effective for fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2004. EITF 03-1 requires that when the fair value of an investment security is less than its carrying value an impairment exists for which a determination must be made as to whether the impairment is temporary or other-than-temporary. An impairment loss should be recognized equal to the difference between the investment's carrying value and its fair value when an impairment is other-than-temporary. Subsequent to an other-than temporary impairment loss, a debt security should be accounted for in accordance with Statement of Position No. 03-3, "Accounting for Loans and Certain Debt Securities Acquired in a Transfer", which allows the accretion of the discount between the carrying value and expected value of a security if the amount and timing of the receipt of the expected cash flows is reasonably estimable. EITF 03-1 also indicates that although not presumptive, a pattern of selling investments prior to the forecasted recovery may call into question an investor's intent to hold the security until it recovers in value or otherwise matures.

        The EITF 03-1 impairment model applies to all investment securities accounted for under SFAS No. 115, "Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities" and to investment securities accounted for under the cost method. The final consensus on EITF 03-1 included additional disclosure requirements incremental to those adopted by the Company effective December 31, 2003 that will be effective December 31, 2004.

        In September 2004, the FASB issued FSP EITF Issue 03-1-1, which deferred the effective date of the impairment measurement and recognition provisions contained in paragraphs 10-20 of EITF 03-1 until proposed FSP EITF 03-1-a is issued. (See Pending Accounting Standard.)

7

Pending Accounting Standard

FSP EITF Issue 03-1-a, "Implementation Guidance for the Application of Paragraph 16 of EITF Issue No. 03-1, "The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments" ("FSP EITF Issue 03-1-a").

        In September 2004, the FASB issued proposed FSP EITF 03-1-a, that addresses the application of paragraph 16 of EITF Issue 03-1 to debt securities that are impaired because of increases in interest rates, and/or credit sector spread. Thereafter, in connection with its decision to defer the effective date of paragraphs 10-20 of EITF 03-1 through the issuance of FSP EITF Issue 03-1-1, the FASB requested from its constituents information about both the issues set forth in FSP EITF 03-1-a as well as the issues that arose during the FSP EITF 03-1-b, "Effective Date of Paragraph 16 of EITF Issue No. 03-1, The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments", comment letter process.

        Due to the uncertainty as to how all of the relevant outstanding issues will be resolved, the Company is unable to determine the impact of adopting paragraphs 10-20 of EITF 03-1 until final implementation guidance is issued. Adoption of paragraphs 10-20 of EITF 03-1 may have a material impact on the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operation but is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position since fluctuations in fair value are already recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income.

2.     Earnings per share

        Basic earnings per share is computed based on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted earnings per share is computed based on the weighted average number of common and dilutive potential common shares outstanding. For Allstate, dilutive potential common shares consist of the common shares underlying outstanding stock options.

8

        The computations of basic and diluted earnings per share are presented in the following table:

        Options to purchase 33.5 thousand and 8.9 million Allstate common shares, with exercise prices ranging from $47.26 to $50.72 and $37.06 to $50.72, were outstanding at September 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2004 and 2003 since inclusion of these options would have an anti-dilutive effect as the options' exercise prices exceeded the average market price of Allstate common shares in the three-month period. Options to purchase 4.0 million and 11.3 million Allstate common shares, with exercise prices ranging from $45.96 to $50.72 and $35.84 to $50.72, were outstanding at September 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004 and 2003 since inclusion of these options would have an anti-dilutive effect.

9

3.     Disposition

        In February 2004, the Company disposed of a portion of its equity investment in a consolidated investment management variable interest entity ("VIE"). This action triggered, under FASB Interpretation No. 46R, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities", a reconsideration of whether the Company remains the primary beneficiary of the VIE. After such reconsideration, the Company determined it was no longer the primary beneficiary of the affected investment management VIE, and accordingly, the VIE was deconsolidated as of the disposition date in the first quarter of 2004. The deconsolidation of the investment management VIE resulted in a decrease in assets of $428 million and a decrease in long-term debt of $412 million at September 30, 2004.

4.     Reserve for Property-Liability Insurance Claims and Claims Expense

        The Company establishes reserves for claims and claims expense on reported and unreported claims of insured losses. These reserve estimates are based on known facts and interpretations of circumstances and internal factors including the Company's experience with similar cases, historical trends involving claim payment patterns, loss payments, pending levels of unpaid claims, loss management programs and product mix. In addition, the reserve estimates are influenced by external factors including law changes, court decisions, changes to regulatory requirements, economic conditions, and public attitudes. The Company, in the normal course of business, may also supplement its claims processes by utilizing third party adjusters, appraisers, engineers, inspectors, other professionals and information sources to assess and settle catastrophe and non-catastrophe related claims. The effects of inflation are implicitly considered in the reserving process.

        Because reserves are estimates of losses that have occurred, including incurred but not reported ("IBNR") losses, the establishment of appropriate reserves, including reserves for catastrophes, is an inherently uncertain and complex process. The ultimate cost of losses may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on management's best estimates. Allstate regularly updates its reserve estimates as new information becomes available and as events unfold that may affect the resolution of unsettled claims. Changes in prior year reserve estimates, which may be material, are reflected in the results of operations in the period such changes are determinable.

        Losses from catastrophes in the third quarter of 2004 includes $1.64 billion, net of recoveries from the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund ("FHCF"), related to Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne. This estimate includes losses in personal lines auto and property policies and net losses on commercial policies. The estimation of these hurricane losses, within the time elapsed since these events, has been complicated by difficulties in gaining access to and estimating the amount and extent of damage for over 205,000 claims submitted to date, estimates of claims yet to be reported, and increased costs due to the effects of increased demand for services and supplies in the affected areas. Cost escalation could occur at a higher level than estimated. However, the Company also may experience favorable development from the number of reported claims and estimates of personal property losses qualifying for FHCF reimbursement. Estimates of gross qualifying personal property losses for Charley and Frances already exceed the $312 million per occurrence FHCF retention thus permitting 90% reimbursement of qualifying losses. For Ivan, the estimated gross loss is $471 million, which includes $225 million of qualifying personal property losses in Florida. For Jeanne, the estimated gross loss is $316 million, which includes $248 million of qualifying personal property losses in Florida. Any adverse development of qualifying personal property losses in Florida for Ivan and Jeanne up to $312 million per storm, or any adverse development of losses not qualifying for reimbursement by the FHCF will adversely impact reportable net income if and when determined.

        Management believes that the reserve for claims and claims expense, net of reinsurance recoverables, at September 30, 2004 is appropriately established in the aggregate and adequate to cover the ultimate net cost of reported and unreported claims arising from losses which had occurred by that date.

10

5.     Reinsurance

        Property-liability insurance premiums and life and annuity premiums and contract charges are net of the following reinsurance ceded:

        Property-liability insurance claims and claims expense and life and annuity contract benefits are net of the following reinsurance recoveries:

        The reinsurance recoveries for property-liability insurance claims and claims expense for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2004 reflect the estimated reimbursement of $202 million from the FHCF, which includes $172 million and $30 million for qualifying personal property losses and commercial losses, respectively.

6.     Company Restructuring

        In 2003, the Company completed the restructuring program initiated in 2001 to improve the efficiency of its claims handling and certain other back-office processes primarily through a consolidation and reconfiguration of field claim offices, customer information centers and satellite offices ("2001 program"). The 2001 program resulted in a reduction of the total number of field claim offices and an increase in the average size of individual claim offices. In addition, two customer information centers and two satellite offices were closed. As part of the 2001 program, employees working in facilities selected for closure were given the option to either relocate or collect severance benefits. As a result of the 2001 program, $96 million was accrued for certain employee termination costs and qualified exit costs. The Company realized approximately $175 million of annual pre-tax expense savings as a result of implementing the 2001 program.

        In addition, the Company undertakes various initiatives to reduce expenses and/or increase productivity ("other programs"). The other programs generally involve a reduction in staffing levels, and in certain cases, office closures.

11

        The following table illustrates the inception to date change in the restructuring liability at September 30, 2004:

        In the third quarter of 2004, the Company eliminated the remaining $10 million of an accrual established in prior years for post-exit rent expenses as a result of the Company's ability to occupy the previously vacant leased space for the remainder of the lease term.

        The payments applied against the liability for employee costs primarily reflect severance costs, and the payments for exit costs generally consist of post-exit rent expenses and contract termination penalties.

7.     Guarantees and Contingent Liabilities

Shared markets

        As a condition of maintaining its licenses to write personal property and casualty insurance in various states, the Company is required to participate in assigned risk plans, reinsurance facilities and joint underwriting associations that provide various types of insurance coverage to individuals or entities that otherwise are unable to purchase such coverage from private insurers. Underwriting results related to these arrangements, which tend to be adverse, have been immaterial to the results of operations.

Guarantees

        The Company provides residual value guarantees on Company leased automobiles. If all outstanding leases were terminated effective September 30, 2004, the Company's maximum obligation pursuant to these guarantees, assuming the automobiles have no residual value, would be $20 million at September 30, 2004. The remaining term of each residual value guarantee is equal to the term of the underlying lease that range from less than one year to three years. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these guarantees.

        The Company owns certain fixed income securities that obligate the Company to exchange credit risk or to forfeit principal due, depending on the nature or occurrence of specified credit events for the referenced entities. In the event all such specified credit events were to occur, the Company's maximum amount at risk on these fixed income securities, as measured by the par value, was $95 million at September 30, 2004. The obligations associated with these fixed income securities expire at various times during the next seven years.

        Lincoln Benefit Life Company ("LBL"), a wholly owned subsidiary of ALIC, has issued universal life insurance contracts to third parties who finance the premium payments on the universal life insurance contracts through a commercial paper program. LBL has issued a repayment guarantee on the outstanding commercial paper balance that is fully collateralized by the cash surrender value of the universal life insurance contracts. At September 30, 2004, the amount due under the commercial paper program is $302 million and the cash surrender value of the policies is $309 million. The repayment guarantee expires April 30, 2006.

12

        In the normal course of business, the Company provides standard indemnifications to counterparties in contracts in connection with numerous transactions, including indemnifications for breaches of representations and warranties, taxes and certain other liabilities, such as third party lawsuits. The indemnification clauses are often standard contractual terms and were entered into in the normal course of business based on an assessment that the risk of loss would be remote. The terms of the indemnifications vary in duration and nature. In many cases, the maximum obligation is not explicitly stated and the contingencies triggering the obligation to indemnify have not occurred and are not expected to occur. Because the obligated amounts of the indemnifications are not explicitly stated in many cases, the maximum amount of the obligation under such indemnifications is not determinable. Historically, the Company has not made any material payments pursuant to these obligations.

        The aggregate liability balance related to all guarantees was not material as of September 30, 2004.

Regulation

        The Company is subject to changing social, economic and regulatory conditions. Recent state and federal regulatory initiatives and proceedings have included efforts to influence and restrict premium rates in a manner adverse to insurers, restrict the ability of insurers to cancel policies, limit insurers' ability to impose underwriting standards, remove barriers preventing banks from engaging in the securities and insurance businesses, change tax laws affecting the taxation of insurance companies and the tax treatment of insurance products or competing non-insurance products that may impact the relative desirability of various personal investment products and otherwise expand overall regulation of insurance products and the insurance industry. The ultimate changes and eventual effects of these initiatives on the Company's business, if any, are uncertain.

        Regulatory bodies have contacted various subsidiaries of the Company and have requested information relating to variable insurance products, including such areas as market timing and late trading and sales practices. The Company believes that these inquiries are similar to those made to many financial services companies as part of an industry-wide investigation by various regulatory agencies into the practices, policies and procedures relating to variable insurance products sales and subaccount trading practices. The various subsidiaries of the Company have and will continue to respond to these information requests and investigations. The Company at the present time is not aware of any systemic problems with respect to such matters that may have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position.

Legal Proceedings

Background

        The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are named as defendants in a number of lawsuits and other legal proceedings arising out of various aspects of its business. As background to the "Proceedings" sub-section below, please note the following:

•

These matters raise difficult and complicated factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties and complexities, including but not limited to, the underlying facts of each matter, novel legal issues, variations between jurisdictions in which matters are being litigated, differences in applicable laws and judicial interpretations, the length of time before many of these matters might be resolved by settlement or through litigation and, in some cases, the timing of their resolutions relative to other similar cases brought against other companies, the fact that many of these matters are putative class actions in which a class has not been certified and in which the purported class may not be clearly defined, the fact that many of these matters involve multi-state class actions in which the applicable law(s) for the claims at issue is in dispute and therefore unclear, and the current challenging legal environment faced by large corporations and insurance companies.



•

In these matters, plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies including equitable relief in the form of injunctive and other remedies and monetary relief in the form of contractual and extra-contractual damages. In some cases, the monetary damages sought include punitive or treble damages or are not specified. Often more specific information beyond the type of relief sought is not available because plaintiffs have not requested more specific relief in their court pleadings. In those cases where plaintiffs have made a specific demand for monetary damages, they often specify damages just below a jurisdictional limit regardless of the facts

13

of the case. This represents the maximum they can seek without risking removal from state court to federal court. In our experience, monetary demands in plaintiffs' court pleadings bear little relation to the ultimate loss, if any, to the Company.

•

For the reasons specified above, it is not possible to make meaningful estimates of the amount or range of loss that could result from these matters at this time. The Company reviews these matters on an on-going basis and follows the provisions of SFAS No. 5, "Accounting for Contingencies" when making accrual and disclosure decisions. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, the Company bases its decisions on its assessment of the ultimate outcome following all appeals.



•

In the opinion of the Company's management, while some of these matters may be material to the Company's operating results for any particular period if an unfavorable outcome results, none will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of the Company.

Proceedings

        There are two active nationwide class action lawsuits against Allstate regarding its specification of after-market (non-original equipment manufacturer) replacement parts in the repair of insured vehicles. One of these suits alleges that the specification of such parts constitutes breach of contract and fraud, and this suit mirrors to a large degree lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry. These plaintiffs allege that after-market parts are not "of like kind and quality" as required by the insurance policy, and they are seeking actual and punitive damages. In the second lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Allstate and three co-defendants have violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to manipulate the price of auto physical damage coverages in such a way that not all savings realized by the use of aftermarket parts are passed on to the policyholders. The plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages. In November 2002, a nationwide class was certified in this case. The defendants filed a petition to appeal the certification, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard oral arguments. The parties are now awaiting a decision on the appeal. The Company has been vigorously defending both of these lawsuits, and their outcome is uncertain.

        There are several statewide and nationwide class action lawsuits pending against Allstate alleging that its failure to pay "inherent diminished value" to insureds under the collision, comprehensive, uninsured motorist property damage, or auto property damage liability provisions of auto policies constitutes breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiffs define "inherent diminished value" as the difference between the market value of the insured automobile before an accident and the market value after repair. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to the payment of inherent diminished value under the terms of the policy. To a large degree, these lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry. These lawsuits are pending in various state and federal courts, and they are in various stages of development. Classes have been certified in only two cases. Both are multi-state class actions. A trial in one of these multi-state class action cases involving collision and comprehensive coverage concluded on April 29, 2004, with a jury verdict in favor of the Company. The plaintiffs made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and have now filed an appeal from the judgment. In the other certified class action lawsuit, which involves uninsured motorist property damage coverage, the appellate court has granted the Company's petition for review of the order of certification. The Company has been vigorously defending all of these lawsuits and, since 1998, has been implementing policy language in more than 40 states reaffirming that its collision and comprehensive coverages do not include diminished value claims. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        There are a number of state and nationwide class action lawsuits pending in various state courts challenging the legal propriety of Allstate's medical bill review processes on a number of grounds, including, among other things, the manner in which Allstate determines reasonableness and necessity. One nationwide class action has been certified. These lawsuits, which to a large degree mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry, allege these processes result in a breach of the insurance policy as well as fraud. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in the form of contractual and extra-contractual damages. The Company denies these allegations and has been vigorously defending these lawsuits. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        A number of nationwide and statewide putative class actions are pending against Allstate, which challenge Allstate's use of certain automated database vendors in valuing total loss automobiles. To a large degree, these

14

lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry. Plaintiffs allege that flaws in these databases result in valuations to the detriment of insureds. The plaintiffs are seeking actual and punitive damages. The lawsuits are in various stages of development and Allstate has been vigorously defending them, but the outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        One putative statewide and a number of putative nationwide class action lawsuits have been filed in various courts seeking actual and punitive damages from Allstate alleging that Allstate violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act or state law by failing to provide appropriate notices to applicants and/or policyholders when adverse action was taken as a result of information in a consumer report or by ordering consumer reports without a permissible purpose. These cases have been centralized in the federal court in Nashville, Tennessee. The Company is also defending a putative nationwide class action that alleges that the Company discriminates against non-Caucasian policyholders, through underwriting and rate-making practices including the use of credit by charging them higher premiums. The plaintiffs seek both monetary relief, in the form of actual and punitive damages, and equitable relief, in the form of injunctive and other remedies. The Company is also defending two putative statewide class actions challenging its use of credit under certain state insurance statutes. These plaintiffs seek monetary and equitable relief. The Company denies these allegations and has been vigorously defending these lawsuits. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        Allstate is defending various lawsuits involving worker classification issues. These lawsuits include a number of putative class actions and one certified class action challenging the overtime exemption claimed by the Company under the Fair Labor Standards Act or state wage and hour laws. In the one certified class action, the trial court has found Allstate liable and the case will proceed to trial on damages. In these cases, Plaintiffs seek monetary relief, such as penalties and liquidated damages, and non-monetary relief, such as injunctive relief and an accounting. These class actions mirror similar lawsuits filed recently against other carriers in the industry and other employers. A putative nationwide class action filed by former employee agents also includes a worker classification issue; these agents are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. This matter was dismissed with prejudice in late March 2004 by the trial court but will be the subject of further proceedings on appeal. Allstate has been vigorously defending these and various other worker classification lawsuits. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        The Company is defending certain matters relating to the Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999. These matters include a lawsuit filed in December 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws, a class action filed in August 2001 by former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA violations, and a lawsuit filed in October 2004 by the EEOC alleging age discrimination with respect to a policy limiting the rehire of agents affected by the agency program reorganization. The Company is also defending another action, in which a class was certified in June 2004, filed by former employee agents who terminated their employment prior to the agency program reorganization. These plaintiffs have asserted claims under ERISA and for constructive discharge, and are seeking the benefits provided in connection with the reorganization. Allstate has asked the court to reconsider its class certification ruling. In late March 2004, in the first EEOC lawsuit and class action lawsuit, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release signer. The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to Allstate "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release." The court also "concluded that, on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination." The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order. The case otherwise remains pending. A putative nationwide class action has also been filed by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA. This matter was dismissed with prejudice in late March 2004 by the trial court but will be the subject of further proceedings on appeal. In these matters, plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief. Allstate has been vigorously defending these lawsuits and other matters related to its agency program reorganization. In addition, Allstate is defending certain matters relating to its life agency program reorganization announced in 2000. These matters include an investigation by the EEOC with respect to allegations of age discrimination and retaliation. Allstate is

15

cooperating fully with the agency investigation and will continue to vigorously defend these and other claims related to the life agency program reorganization. The outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.

        The Company is defending various lawsuits and regulatory proceedings that allege that it engaged in business or sales practices inconsistent with state or federal law. In addition, the Company is defending a number of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs challenging trading restrictions the Company adopted in an effort to limit market-timing activity in its variable annuity sub-accounts. In one case, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their breach of contract claims was granted and the matter will proceed to trial on damages pending the Company's request for an interlocutory appeal. In these various lawsuits, plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies including monetary and equitable relief. In regulatory proceedings, regulatory authorities may ultimately assess fines or penalties or possibly require customer refunds. The Company has been vigorously defending these matters, but their outcome is currently uncertain.

Other Matters

        The Company and its subsidiaries have received interrogatories and demands to produce information from several regulatory and enforcement authorities. These authorities are seeking information relevant to on-going investigations into the possible violation of antitrust or insurance laws by unnamed parties and, in particular, are seeking information as to whether any person engaged in activities for the purpose of price fixing, market allocation, or bid rigging. Published press reports have indicated that numerous demands of this nature have been sent to insurance companies as part of industry-wide investigations. The Company intends to cooperate fully with these and any similar requests for information.

        Various other legal and regulatory actions are currently pending that involve the Company and specific aspects of its conduct of business. Like other members of the insurance industry, the Company is the target of a number of class action lawsuits and other types of litigation, some of which involve claims for substantial or indeterminate amounts. This litigation is based on a variety of issues including insurance and claim settlement practices. The outcome of these disputes is currently unpredictable. However, at this time, based on their present status, it is the opinion of management that the ultimate liability, if any, in one or more of these other actions in excess of amounts currently reserved is not expected to have a material effect on the results of operations, liquidity or financial position of the Company.

Asbestos and environmental

        Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $1.5 billion and $1.08 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $970 million and $504 million at September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $246 million and $257 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $53 million and $58 million at September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively. Approximately 61% and 60% of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves at September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated losses.

        Management believes its net loss reserves for environmental, asbestos and other discontinued lines exposures are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws and regulations. However, due to the inconsistencies of court coverage decisions, unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage, unresolved legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing of exhaustion of policy limits, plaintiffs' evolving and expanded theories of liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, availability and collectibility of recoveries from reinsurance, retrospectively determined premiums and other contractual agreements, and estimating the extent and timing of any contractual liability, and other uncertainties, the ultimate cost of these claims may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded, resulting in an increase in loss reserves. In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the uncertainties and factors described above, management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be required.

16

8.     Components of Net Periodic Pension and Postretirement Benefit Costs

        The Company's measurement of the APBO and net periodic postretirement benefit cost does not reflect any amount associated with the subsidy provided by the Act as the Company is currently unable to determine if its plans are actuarially equivalent (see Note 1). The components of net periodic cost for the Company's pension and postretirement benefit plans for the nine months ended September 30 are as follows:

Cash Flows

        As of September 30, 2004, the Company has contributed $162 million to its pension plans and the Company now plans to contribute a total of $464 million to its pension plans in 2004.

9.     Equity Incentive Plans

        The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share as if the fair value based method, adopted prospectively by the Company on January 1, 2003, had been applied to all outstanding and unvested awards in each period.

17

10.   Business Segments

        Summarized revenue data for each of the Company's business segments are as follows: