Our insurance products primarily include commercial property and casualty coverages, including surety. Our services include risk management, information services, warranty and claims administration. Our products and services are primarily marketed through independent agents, brokers and managing general underwriters to a wide variety of customers, including small, medium and large businesses, insurance companies, associations, professionals and other groups.

The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive both as to rate and service. We compete with a large number of stock and mutual insurance companies and other entities for both distributors and customers. Insurers compete on the basis of factors including products, price, services, ratings and financial strength. We must continuously allocate resources to refine and improve our insurance products and services.

The insurance industry is subject to comprehensive and detailed regulation and supervision. Each domestic and foreign jurisdiction has established supervisory agencies with broad administrative powers relative to licensing insurers and agents, approving policy forms, establishing reserve requirements, prescribing the form and content of statutory financial reports, and regulating capital adequacy and the type, quality and amount of investments permitted. Such regulatory powers also extend to premium rate regulations, which require that rates not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory. In addition to regulation of dividends by insurance subsidiaries, intercompany transfers of assets may be subject to prior notice or approval by insurance regulators, depending on the size of such transfers and payments in relation to the financial position of the insurance subsidiaries making the transfer or payment.

The European Union's executive body, the European Commission, is implementing new capital adequacy and risk management regulations called Solvency II that would apply to our European operations. In addition, global regulators, including the United States National Association of Insurance Commissioners, are working with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) to consider changes to insurance company supervision. Among the areas being addressed are company and group capital requirements, group supervision and enterprise

risk management. It is not currently clear to what extent or how the activities of the IAIS will impact the Company or U.S. insurance regulation.

InsurersDomestic insurers are also required by the state insurance regulators to provide coverage to insureds who would not otherwise be considered eligible by the insurers. Each state dictates the types of insurance and the level of coverage that must be provided to such involuntary risks. Our share of these involuntary risks is mandatory and generally a function of our respective share of the voluntary market by line of insurance in each state.

Further, insurance companies are subject to state guaranty fund and other insurance-related assessments. Guaranty fund assessments are levied by the state departments of insurance to cover claims of insolvent insurers. Other insurance-related assessments are generally levied by state agencies to fund various organizations including disaster relief funds, rating bureaus, insurance departments, and workers' compensation second injury funds, or by industry organizations that assist in the statistical analysis and ratemaking process.

Although the federal government does not directly regulate the business of insurance, federal legislative and regulatory initiatives can impact the insurance industry in a variety of ways. These initiatives and legislation include tort reform proposals; proposals addressing natural catastrophe exposures; terrorism risk mechanisms; federal financial services reforms; various tax proposals affecting insurance companies; and possible regulatory limitations, impositions and restrictions arising from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, both enacted in 2010.

Various legislative and regulatory efforts to reform the tort liability system have, and will continue to, impact our industry. Although there has been some tort reform with positive impact to the insurance industry, new causes of action and theories of damages continue to be proposed in state court actions or by federal or state legislatures that continue to expand liability for insurers and their policyholders. For example, some state legislatures have from time to time considered legislation addressing direct actions against insurers related to bad faith claims. As a result of this unpredictability in the law, insurance underwriting is expected to continue to be difficult in commercial lines, professional liability and other specialty coverages.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act expandsexpanded the federal presence in insurance oversight and may increase the regulatory requirements to which we may be subject. The Act's requirements include streamlining the state-based regulation of reinsurance and nonadmitted insurance (property or casualty insurance placed from insurers that are eligible to accept insurance, but are not licensed to write insurance in a particular state). The Act also establishesestablished a new Federal Insurance Office within the U.S. Department of the Treasury with powers over all lines of insurance except health insurance, certain long-term care insurance and crop insurance, to, among other things, monitor aspects of the insurance industry, identify issues in the regulation of insurers that could contribute to a systemic crisis in the insurance industry or the overall financial system, coordinate federal policy on international insurance matters and preempt state insurance measures under certain circumstances.Treasury. The Act callscalled for numerous studies and contemplates further regulation.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the related amendments in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act may increase our operating costs and underwriting losses. This landmark legislation may lead to numerous changes in the health care industry that could create additional operating costs for us, particularly with respect to our workers' compensation and long term care products. These costs might arise through the increased use of health care services by our claimants or the increased complexities in health care bills that could require additional levels of review. In addition, due to the expected number of new participants in the health care system and the potential for additional malpractice claims, we may experience increased underwriting risk in the lines of our business that provide management and professional liability insurance to individuals and businesses engaged in the health care industry. The lines of our business that provide professional liability insurance to attorneys, accountants and other professionals who advise clients regarding the health care reform legislation may also experience increased underwriting risk due to the complexity of the legislation.

The following loss reserve development table illustrates the change over time of reserves established for property and casualty claim and claim adjustment expenses at the end of the preceding ten calendar years for our property and casualty insurance companies. The table excludes our life insurance subsidiaries, and as such, the carried reserves will not agree to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8. The first section shows the reserves as originally reported at the end of the stated year. The second section, reading down, shows the cumulative amounts paid as of the end of successive years with respect to the originally reported reserve liability. The third section, reading down, shows re-estimates of the originally recorded reserves as of the end of each successive year, which is the result of our property and casualty insurance subsidiaries' expanded awareness of additional facts and circumstances that pertain to the unsettled claims. The last section compares the latest re-estimated reserves to the reserves originally established, and indicates whether the original reserves were adequate or inadequate to cover the estimated costs of unsettled claims.

Our business faces many risks. We have described below some of the more significant risks which we face. There may be additional risks that we do not yet know of or that we do not currently perceive to be significant that may also impact our business. Each of the risks and uncertainties described below could lead to events or circumstances that have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, equity, business and insurer financial strength and corporate debt ratings. You should carefully consider and evaluate all of the information included in this Report and any subsequent reports we may file with the SEC or make available to the public before investing in any securities we issue.

We maintain insurance reserves to cover our estimated ultimate unpaid liability for claim and claim adjustment expenses, including the estimated cost of the claims adjudication process, for reported and unreported claims and for future policy benefits. Reserves represent our best estimate at a given point in time. Insurance reserves are not an exact calculation of liability but instead are complex estimates derived by us, generally utilizing a variety of reserve estimation techniques from numerous assumptions and expectations about future events, many of which are highly uncertain, such as estimates of claims severity, frequency of claims, mortality, morbidity, discount rates, inflation, claims handling, case reserving policies and procedures, underwriting and pricing policies, changes in the legal and regulatory environment and the lag time between the occurrence of an insured event and the time of its ultimate settlement. Mortality is the relative incidence of death. Morbidity is the frequency and severity of illness, sickness and diseases contracted. Many of these uncertainties are not precisely quantifiable and require significant judgment on our part. As trends in underlying claims develop, particularly in so-called “long tail” or long duration coverages, we are sometimes required to add to our reserves. This is called unfavorable net prior year development and results in a charge to our earnings in the amount of the added reserves, recorded in the period the change in estimate is made. These charges can be substantial.

We are subject to the uncertain effects of emerging or potential claims and coverage issues that arise as industry practices and legal, judicial, social, economic and other environmental conditions change. These issues have had, and may continue to have, a negative effect on our business by either extending coverage beyond the original underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims, resulting in further increases in our reserves which can have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and equity.reserves. The effects of these and other unforeseen emerging claim and coverage issues are extremely hard to predict. Examples of emerging or potential claims and coverage issues include:

In light of the many uncertainties associated with establishing the estimates and making the assumptions necessary to establish reserve levels, we review and change our reserve estimates in a regular and ongoing process as experience develops and further claims are reported and settled. If estimated reserves are insufficient for any reason, the required increase in reserves would be recorded as a charge against our earnings in the period in which reserves are determined to be insufficient. These charges could be substantial.

Catastrophe losses are an inevitable part of our business. Various events can cause catastrophe losses. These events can be natural or man-made, and may include hurricanes, windstorms, earthquakes, hail, severe winter weather, fires, and acts of terrorism. The frequency and severity of these catastrophe events are inherently unpredictable. In addition, longer-term natural catastrophe trends may be changing and new types of catastrophe losses may be developing due to climate change, a phenomenon that has been associated with extreme weather events linked to rising temperatures, and includes effects on global weather patterns, greenhouse gases, sea, land and air temperatures, sea levels, rain, hail and snow.

The extent of our losses from catastrophes is a function of the total amount of our insured exposures in the affected areas, the frequency and severity of the events themselves, and the level of reinsurance assumed and ceded, and reinsurance reinstatement premiums, if any. As in the case of catastrophe losses generally, it can take a long time for the ultimate cost to us to be finally determined, as a multitude of factors contribute to such costs, including evaluation of general liability and pollution exposures, additional living expenses, infrastructure disruption, business interruption and reinsurance collectibility. Reinsurance coverage for terrorism events is provided only in limited circumstances, especially in regard to “unconventional” terrorism acts, such as nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attacks. As a result, losses from these types of catastrophe losses are particularly difficult to manage.estimate.

As our claim experience develops on a specific catastrophe, we may be required to adjust our reserves, or take unfavorable net prior year development, to reflect our revised estimates of the total cost of claims.

Our property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposures related to A&EP claims. Our experience has been that establishing claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for casualty coverages relating to A&EP claims areis subject to uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other claims. Additionally, traditional actuarial methods and techniques employed to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional property and casualty exposures are less precise in estimating claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for A&EP. As a result, estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and unreported A&EP claims is subject to a higher degree of variability.

Our key assumptions usedreinsurance at a cost we deem acceptable, we may be unwilling to determine reservesbear the increased risk and would reduce the recoverabilitylevel of deferred acquisition costs for long term care products and payout annuity contracts could vary significantly from actual experience.our underwriting commitments.

We have significant amounts recoverable from reinsurers which are reported as receivables on our Consolidated Balance Sheets and are estimated in a manner consistent with claim and claim adjustment expense reserves or future policy benefits reserves. The ceding of insurance does not, however, discharge our reservesprimary liability for claims. As a result, we are subject to credit risk relating to our ability to recover amounts due from reinsurers. In the past, certain of our reinsurance carriers have experienced credit downgrades by rating agencies within the term of our contractual relationship. Such action increases the likelihood that we will not be able to recover amounts due. In addition, reinsurers could dispute amounts which we believe are due to us. If we are not able to collect the amounts due to us from reinsurers for any of the foregoing reasons, our net incurred losses will be higher.

A portion of our business is written under deductible policies. Under these policies, we are obligated to pay the related insurance claims and are reimbursed by the policyholder to the extent of the deductible, which may be significant. As a result we are exposed to credit risk to the policyholder. If we are not able to collect the amounts due to us from policyholders, our incurred losses will be higher.

Our investment portfolio is exposed to various risks, such as interest rate, credit, and currency risks, many of which are unpredictable. Investment returns are an important part of our overall profitability. General economic conditions, changes in financial markets such as fluctuations in interest rates, credit conditions and currency, commodity and stock prices, and many other factors beyond our control can adversely affect the value of our investments and the realization of investment income. Further, we invest a portion of our assets in equity securities and limited partnerships which are subject to greater market volatility than our fixed income investments. In addition, limited partnership investments generally present higher illiquidity than fixed income investments. As a result of all of these factors, we may not realize an adequate return on our investments, may incur losses on sales of our investments, and may be required to write down the value of our investments.

We exercise significant judgment in analyzing and validating fair values, which are primarily provided by third parties, for securities in our investment portfolio, including those that are not regularly traded in active markets. We also exercise significant judgment in determining whether the impairment of particular investments is temporary or other-than-temporary. ResidentialThe valuation of residential and commercial mortgage and other asset backedasset-backed securities can be particularly sensitive to fairly small changes in collateral performance.

Due to the inherent uncertainties involved with these types of risks and the resulting judgments, we may incur unrealized losses and conclude that other-than-temporary write downs of our investments are required.

All aspects of the insurance industry are highly competitive and we must continuously allocate resources to refine and improve our insurance products and services. We compete with a large number of stock and mutual insurance companies and other entities for both distributors and customers. Insurers compete on the basis of factors including products, price, services, ratings and financial strength. The property and casualty market is cyclical and has experienced periods characterized by relatively high levels of price competition, less restrictive underwriting standards and relatively low premium rates, followed by periods of relatively lower levels of competition, more selective underwriting standards and relatively high premium rates. During periods in which price competition is high, we may lose business to competitors offering competitive insurance products at lower prices. As a result, our premium levels and expense ratio could be materially adversely impacted.

Insurance companies such as us are subject to capital adequacy standards set by regulators to help identify companies that merit further regulatory attention. These standards apply specified risk factors to various asset, premium and reserve components of statutory capital and surplus reported in our statutory basis of accounting financial statements. Current rules, including those promulgated by insurance regulators and specialized markets, such as Lloyd's, require companies to maintain statutory capital and surplus at a specified minimum level determined using the applicable regulatory capital adequacy formula. If we do not meet these minimum requirements, regulatorswe may restrictbe restricted or prohibit usprohibited from operating our business. If we are required to record a material charge against earnings in connection with a change in estimatesestimate or circumstancesthe occurrence of an event, or if we incur significant unrealized losses related to our investment portfolio, we may violate these minimum capital adequacy requirements unless we are able to raise sufficient additional capital.

While Loews has provided us with substantial amounts of capital in prior years, Loews may be restricted in its ability or may not be willing to provide additional capital support to us in the future. If we are in need of additional capital, we may be required to secure this funding from sources other than Loews. We may be limited in our ability to raise significant amounts of capital on favorable terms or at all.

We are a holding company and are dependent upon dividends, loans and other sources of cash from our subsidiaries in order to meet our obligations. Ordinary dividend payments, or dividends that do not require prior approval by

the insurance subsidiaries' domiciliary state departments of insurance regulator are generally limited to amounts determined by formula which varies by state.jurisdiction. The formula for the majority of thedomestic states is the greater of 10% of the prior year statutory surplus or the prior year statutory net income, less the aggregate of all dividends paid during the twelve months prior to the date of payment. Some jurisdictions, including certain domestic states, however, have an additional stipulation that dividends cannot exceed the prior year's earned surplus. If we are restricted, by regulatory rule or otherwise, from paying or receiving inter-company dividends, we may not be able to fund our working capital needs and debt service requirements from available cash. As a result, we would need to look to other sources of capital which may be more expensive or may not be available at all.

Ratings are an important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. Our insurance company subsidiaries, as well as our public debt, are rated by rating agencies, namely, A.M. Best Company (A.M. Best), Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (Moody's) and Standard & Poor's (S&P). Ratings reflect the rating agency's opinions of an insurance company's or insurance holding company's financial strength, capital adequacy, operating performance, strategic position and ability to meet its obligations to policyholders and debt holders.

Due to the intense competitive environment in which we operate, the uncertainty in determining reserves and the potential for us to take material unfavorable net prior year development in the future, and possible changes in the methodology or criteria applied by the rating agencies, the rating agencies may take action to lower our ratings in the future. If our property and casualty insurance financial strength ratings are downgraded below current levels, our business and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. The severity of the impact on our business is dependent on the level of downgrade and, for certain products, which rating agency takes the rating action. Among the adverse effects in the event of such downgrades would be the inability to obtain a material volume of business from certain major insurance brokers, the inability to sell a material volume of our insurance products to certain markets, and the required collateralization of certain future payment obligations or reserves.

In addition, it is possible that a lowering of the corporate debt ratings of Loews by certain of the rating agencies could result in an adverse impact on our ratings, independent of any change in our circumstances. We have entered into several settlement agreements and assumed reinsurance contracts that require collateralization of future payment obligations and assumed reserves if our ratings or other specific criteria fall below certain thresholds. The ratings triggers are generally more than one level below our current ratings.

The insurance industry is subject to comprehensive and detailed regulation and supervision. Most insurance regulations are designed to protect the interests of our policyholders rather than our investors. Each jurisdiction in which we do business has established supervisory agencies that regulate the manner in which we do business. TheirIn addition, the Lloyd's marketplace sets rules under which its members, including our Hardy syndicate, operate.

These rules and regulations relate to, among other things, the following:

Regulatory powers also extend to premium rate regulations which require that rates not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory. The jurisdictions in which we do business may also require us to provide coverage to persons whom we would not otherwise consider eligible. Each jurisdiction dictates the types of insurance and the level of coverage that must be provided to such involuntary risks. Our share of these involuntary risks is mandatory and generally a function of our respective share of the voluntary market by line of insurance in each jurisdiction.

None.

Not applicable.

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Stock Exchange under the symbol CNA.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with Item 1A. Risk Factors, Item 6. Selected Financial Data and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K. References to net operating income (loss), net realized investment gains (losses) and net income (loss) used in this MD&A reflect amounts attributable to CNA, unless otherwise noted.

The preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the Consolidated Financial Statements and the amounts of revenues and expenses reported during the period. Actual results may differ from those estimates.

Our Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying notes have been prepared in accordance with GAAP applied on a consistent basis. We continually evaluate the accounting policies and estimates used to prepare the Consolidated Financial Statements. In general, our estimates are based on historical experience, evaluation of current trends, information from third party professionals and various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the known facts and circumstances.

Insurance reserves are established for both short and long-duration insurance contracts. Short-duration contracts are primarily related to property and casualty insurance policies where the reserving process is based on actuarial estimates of the amount of loss, including amounts for known and unknown claims. Long-duration contracts include long term care products and payout annuity contracts and are estimated using actuarial estimates about mortality, morbidity and persistency as well as assumptions about expected investment returns. The reserve for unearned premiums on property and casualty and accident and health contracts represents the portion of premiums written related to the unexpired terms of coverage. The inherent risks associated with the reserving process areis discussed in further detail in the Reserves - Estimates and Uncertainties section below.

Additionally, an exposure exists with respect to the collectibility of amounts due from policyholders related to insurance contracts, including amounts due from insureds under high deductible policies. An allowance for uncollectible insurance receivables is recorded on the basis of periodic evaluations of balances due from insureds currently or in the future, management's experience and current economic conditions.

If actual experience differs from the estimates made by management in determining the allowances for uncollectible reinsurance and insurance receivables, net receivables as reflected on our Consolidated Balance Sheets may not be collected. Therefore, our results of operations or equity could be materially adversely impacted.

Future policy benefit reserves for our long term care products and payout annuity contracts and deferred acquisition costs for our long term care products are based on certain assumptions including morbidity, mortality, policy persistency, and discount rates, which are impacted by expected investment yields. The recoverability of deferred acquisition costs and the adequacy of the reserves are contingent on actual experience related to these key assumptions, which were generally established at time of issue. If actual experience differs from these assumptions, the deferred acquisition costs may not be fully realized and the reserves may not be adequate, requiring us to add to reserves. Therefore, our results of operations or equity could be adversely impacted. The inherent risks associated with the reserving process areis discussed in further detail in the Reserves - Estimates and Uncertainties section below.

We make a significant number of assumptions in estimating the liabilities and costs related to our pension and postretirement benefit obligations to employees under our benefit plans. The assumptions that most impact these costs are the discount rate and the expected long term rate of return on plan assets. These assumptions are evaluated relative to current economic factors such as inflation, interest rates and fiscal and monetary policies. Changes in these assumptions can have a material impact on pension obligations and pension expense.

To determine the discount rate assumption as of the year-end measurement date for our CNA Retirement Plan and CNA Health and Group Benefits Program, we considered the estimated timing of plan benefit payments and available yields on high quality fixed income debt securities. For this purpose, high quality is considered a rating of Aa or better by Moody's or a rating of AA or better from S&P. We reviewed several yield curves constructed using the cash flow characteristics of the plans as well as bond indices as of the measurement date. The year-over-year change of those data points was also considered.

In determining the expected long term rate of return on plan assets assumption for our CNA Retirement Plan, we considered the historical performance of the investment portfolio as well as the long term market return expectations based on the investment mix of the portfolio.

We account for income taxes under the asset and liability method. Under this method, deferred income taxes are recognized for temporary differences between the financial statement and tax return basis of assets and liabilities. Any resulting future tax benefits are recognized to the extent that realization of such benefits is more likely than not, and a valuation allowance is established for any portion of a deferred tax asset that management believes will not be realized. The assessment of the need for a valuation allowance requires management to make estimates and assumptions about future earnings, reversal of existing temporary differences and available tax planning strategies. If actual experience differs from these estimates and assumptions, the recorded deferred tax asset may not be fully realized resulting in an increase to income tax expense in our results of operations. In addition, the ability to record deferred tax assets in the future could be limited, resulting in a higher effective tax rate in that future period.

The level of reserves we maintain represents our best estimate, as of a particular point in time, of what the ultimate settlement and administration of claims will cost based on our assessment of facts and circumstances known at that time. Reserves are not an exact calculation of liability but instead are complex estimates that we derive, generally utilizing a variety of actuarial reserve estimation techniques, from numerous assumptions and expectations about future events, both internal and external, many of which are highly uncertain.

We are subject to the uncertain effects of emerging or potential claims and coverage issues that arise as industry practices and legal, judicial, social, economic and other environmental conditions change. These issues have had, and may continue to have, a negative effect on our business by either extending coverage beyond the original underwriting intent or by increasing the number or size of claims. Examples of emerging or potential claims and coverage issues include:

The impact of these and other unforeseen emerging or potential claims and coverage issues is difficult to predict and could materially adversely affect the adequacy of our claim and claim adjustment expense reserves and could lead to future reserve additions.

Our property and casualty insurance subsidiaries also have actual and potential exposures related to A&EP claims. Our experience has been that establishing reserves for casualty coverages relating to A&EP claims and the related claim adjustment expenses are subject to uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other claims. Additionally, traditional actuarial methods and techniques employed to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional property and casualty exposures are less precise in estimating claim and claim adjustment reserves for A&EP. As a result, estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and unreported A&EP claims are subject to a higher degree of variability.

In developing claim and claim adjustment expense ("loss" or "losses") reserve estimates, our actuaries perform detailed reserve analyses that are staggered throughout the year. The data is organized at a "product" level. A product can be a line of business covering a subset of insureds such as commercial automobile liability for small or middle market customers, it can encompass several lines of business provided to a specific set of customers such as dentists, or it can be a particular type of claim such as construction defect. Every product is analyzed at least once during the year, with the exception of certain run-off products which are analyzed on a periodic basis. The analyses generally review losses gross of ceded reinsurance and apply the ceded reinsurance terms to the gross estimates to establish estimates net of reinsurance. In addition to the detailed analyses, we review actual loss emergence for all products each quarter.

The detailed analyses use a variety of generally accepted actuarial methods and techniques to produce a number of estimates of ultimate loss. Our actuaries determine a point estimate of ultimate loss by reviewing the various estimates and assigning weight to each estimate given the characteristics of the product being reviewed. The reserve estimate is the difference between the estimated ultimate loss and the losses paid to date. The difference between the estimated ultimate loss and the case incurred loss (paid loss plus case reserve) is IBNR. IBNR calculated as such includes a provision for development on known cases (supplemental development) as well as a provision for claims that have occurred but have not yet been reported (pure IBNR).

Most of our business can be characterized as long-tail. For long-tail business, it will generally be several years between the time the business is written and the time when all claims are settled. Our long-tail exposures include commercial automobile liability, workers' compensation, general liability, medical professional liability, other professional liability coverages, assumed reinsurance run-off and products liability. Short-tail exposures include property, commercial automobile physical damage, marine and warranty. CNA Specialty and CNA Commercial contain both long-tail and short-tail exposures. Hardy contains primarily short-tail exposures. Corporate & Other Non-Core contains long-tail exposures.

Various methods are used to project ultimate loss for both long-tail and short-tail exposures including, but not limited to, the following:

The paid development method estimates ultimate losses by reviewing paid loss patterns and applying them to accident or policy years with further expected changes in paid loss. Selection of the paid loss pattern requiresmay require consideration of several factors including the impact of inflation on claims costs, the rate at which claims professionals make claim payments and close claims, the impact of judicial decisions, the impact of underwriting changes, the impact of large claim payments and other factors. Claim cost inflation itself requiresmay require evaluation of changes in the cost of repairing or replacing property, changes in the cost of medical care, changes in the cost of wage replacement, judicial decisions, legislative changes and other factors. Because this method assumes that losses are paid at a consistent rate, changes in any of these factors can impact the results. Since the method does not rely on case reserves, it is not directly influenced by changes in the adequacy of case reserves.

For many products, paid loss data for recent periods may be too immature or erratic for accurate predictions. This situation often exists for long-tail exposures. In addition, changes in the factors described above may result in

inconsistent payment patterns. Finally, estimating the paid loss pattern subsequent to the most mature point available in the data analyzed often involves considerable uncertainty for long-tail products such as workers' compensation.

The incurred development method is similar to the paid development method, but it uses case incurred losses instead of paid losses.  Since the method uses more data (case reserves in addition to paid losses) than the paid development method, the incurred development patterns may be less variable than paid patterns. However, selection of the incurred loss pattern typically requires analysis of all of the same factors described above. In addition, the inclusion of case reserves can lead to distortions if changes in case reserving practices have taken place, and the use of case incurred losses may not eliminate the issues associated with estimating the incurred loss pattern subsequent to the most mature point available.

The loss ratio method multiplies earned premiums by an expected loss ratio to produce ultimate loss estimates for each accident or policy year. This method may be useful for immature accident or policy periods or if loss development patterns are inconsistent, losses emerge very slowly, or there is relatively little loss history from which to estimate future losses. The selection of the expected loss ratio typically requires analysis of loss ratios from earlier accident or policy years or pricing studies and analysis of inflationary trends, frequency trends, rate changes, underwriting changes, and other applicable factors.

The Bornhuetter-Ferguson method using paid loss is a combination of the paid development method and the loss ratio method. This method normally determines expected loss ratios similar to the approach used to estimate the expected loss ratio for the loss ratio method and typically requires analysis of the same factors described above. This method assumes that only future losses will develop at the expected loss ratio level. The percent of paid loss to ultimate loss implied from the paid development method is used to determine what percentage of ultimate loss is yet to be paid. The use of the pattern from the paid development method typically requires consideration of allthe same factors listed in the description of the paid development method. The estimate of losses yet to be paid is added to current paid losses to estimate the ultimate loss for each year. ThisFor long-tail lines, this method will react very slowly if actual ultimate loss ratios are different from expectations due to changes not accounted for by the expected loss ratio calculation.

The Bornhuetter-Ferguson method using incurred loss is similar to the Bornhuetter-Ferguson method using paid loss except that it uses case incurred losses. The use of case incurred losses instead of paid losses can result in development patterns that are less variable than paid patterns. However, the inclusion of case reserves can lead to distortions if changes in case reserving have taken place, and the method typically requires analysis of all the same factors that need to be reviewed for the loss ratio and incurred development methods.

The frequency times severity method multiplies a projected number of ultimate claims by an estimated ultimate average loss for each accident or policy year to produce ultimate loss estimates. Since projections of the ultimate number of claims are often less variable than projections of ultimate loss, this method can provide more reliable results for products where loss development patterns are inconsistent or too variable to be relied on exclusively. In addition, this method can more directly account for changes in coverage that impact the number and size of claims. However, this method can be difficult to apply to situations where very large claims or a substantial number of unusual claims result in volatile average claim sizes. Projecting the ultimate number of claims requiresmay require analysis of several factors including the rate at which policyholders report claims to us, the impact of judicial decisions, the impact of underwriting changes and other factors. Estimating the ultimate average loss requiresmay require analysis of the impact of large losses and claim cost trends based on changes in the cost of repairing or replacing property, changes in the cost of medical care, changes in the cost of wage replacement, judicial decisions, legislative changes and other factors.

Stochastic modeling produces a range of possible outcomes based on varying assumptions related to the particular product being modeled. For some products, we use models which rely on historical development patterns at an aggregate level, while other products are modeled using individual claim variability assumptions supplied by the claims department. In either case, multiple simulations are run and the results are analyzed to produce a range of potential outcomes. The results will typically include a mean and percentiles of the possible reserve distribution which aid in the selection of a point estimate.

For many exposures, especially those that can be considered long-tail, a particular accident or policy year may not have a sufficient volume of paid losses to produce a statistically reliable estimate of ultimate losses. In such a

case, our actuaries typically assign more weight to the incurred development method than to the paid development method. As claims continue to settle and the volume of paid loss increases, the actuaries may assign additional weight to the paid development method.  For most of our products, even the incurred losses for accident or policy years that are early in the claim settlement process will not be of sufficient volume to produce a reliable estimate of ultimate losses.

For other more complex products where the above methods may not produce reliable indications, we use additional methods tailored to the characteristics of the specific situation.

The reserve analyses performed by our actuaries result in point estimates. Each quarter, the results of the detailed reserve reviews are summarized and discussed with our senior management to determine the best estimate of reserves. This group considers many factors in making this decision. The factors include, but are not limited to, the historical pattern and volatility of the actuarial indications, the sensitivity of the actuarial indications to changes in paid and incurred loss patterns, the consistency of claims handling processes, the consistency of case reserving practices, changes in our pricing and underwriting, pricing and underwriting trends in the insurance market, and legal, judicial, social and economic trends.

Our recorded reserves reflect our best estimate as of a particular point in time based upon known facts, consideration of the factors cited above, and our judgment. The carried reserve may differ from the actuarial point estimate as the result of our consideration of the factors noted above as well as the potential volatility of the projections associated with the specific product being analyzed and other factors impacting claims costs that may not be quantifiable through traditional actuarial analysis. This process results in management's best estimate which is then recorded as the loss reserve.

Currently, our recorded reserves are modestly higher than the actuarial point estimate. For both CNA Commercial, and CNA Specialty and Hardy, the difference between our reserves and the actuarial point estimate is primarily driven by uncertainty with respect to immature accident years, claim cost inflation, changes in claims handling, tort reform roll-backs which may adversely impact claim costs, and the effects from the economy. For Corporate & Other Non-Core, the difference between our reserves and the actuarial point estimate is primarily driven by the potential tail volatility of run-off exposures.

The key assumptions fundamental to the reserving process are often different for various products and accident or policy years. Some of these assumptions are explicit assumptions that are required of a particular method, but most of the assumptions are implicit and cannot be precisely quantified. An example of an explicit assumption is the pattern employed in the paid development method. However, the assumed pattern is itself based on several implicit assumptions such as the impact of inflation on medical costs and the rate at which claim professionals close claims. As a result, the effect on reserve estimates of a particular change in assumptions usuallytypically cannot be specifically quantified, and changes in these assumptions cannot be tracked over time.

Our recorded reserves are management's best estimate. In order to provide an indication of the variability associated with our net reserves, the following discussion provides a sensitivity analysis that shows the approximate estimated impact of variations in significant factors affecting our reserve estimates for particular types of business. These significant factors are the ones that we believe could most likely materially impact the reserves. This discussion covers the major types of business for which we believe a material deviation to our reserves is reasonably possible. There can be no assurance that actual experience will be consistent with the current assumptions or with the variation indicated by the discussion. In addition, there can be no assurance that other factors and assumptions will not have a material impact on our reserves.

Within CNA Specialty, we believe a material deviation to our net reserves is reasonably possible for professional liability and related business. This business includes professional liability coverages provided to various professional firms, including architects, real estate agents, small and mid-sized accounting firms, law firms and