UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.  )

Filed by the Registrantx    Filed by a Party other than the Registrant¨

Check the appropriate box:


Filed by the Registrant ý Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨
Check the appropriate box:
¨

Preliminary Proxy Statement

¨

Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule14a-6(e)(2))

x
ý

Definitive Proxy Statement

¨

Definitive Additional Materials

¨

Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

x

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
ýNo fee required.

¨

Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules14a-6(i)(4) and0-11.

 (1)

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

 (2)

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

 (3)

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

 (4)

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

 (5)

Total fee paid:

¨

Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

¨

Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

 (1)

Amount Previously Paid:

 (2)

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

 (3)

Filing Party:

 (4)

Date Filed:

LOGO



proxycovera01.jpg

stfclogobluergb.jpg

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

NOTICE OF 2017 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Date and Time:    

To the Shareholders of

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION:

Notice is hereby given that the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Friday, May 5, 2017, at 11:00 a.m., local time


Place:     State Auto Financial Corporation (the “Company” or “STFC”) will be held at the Company’sCorporation's principal executive offices, located at 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Items of Business: At the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, shareholders will consider and vote on May 8, 2015, at 11:00 a.m., local time, for the following purposes:

matters:

1.

To elect fourElection of two Class IIIII directors, each to hold office for a three-year term and one Class I director to hold office for a two-year term (the remaining term for that class of directors) and in each case until a successor is elected and qualified;


2.

To consider and vote upon aA proposal to amendadopt the Company’s 1991 Employee Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestmentmaterial terms of the State Auto Financial Corporation 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan;


3.

To ratifyRatification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’sState Auto Financial Corporation's independent registered public accounting firm for 2015;

2017;


4.

To consider and vote upon, on a non-bindingNon-binding and advisory basis,vote on the compensation of the Company’s named executive officersState Auto Financial Corporation's Named Executive Officers as disclosed in the Proxy Statement for the 20152017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders; and


5.

Non-binding and advisory vote on whether future advisory votes on executive compensation should occur every year, every two years or every three years; and


6.To transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment thereof.

The

Record Date: State Auto Financial Corporation shareholders as of the close of business on March 13, 2015, has been fixed as the record date for the determination of shareholders10, 2017, will be entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and any adjournment thereof.

In orderof the meeting.

Delivery of Proxy Materials: We will first mail the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials to our shareholders on or about March 22, 2017. On or about the same day, we will begin mailing paper copies of our proxy materials to shareholders who have requested them.
Voting: Your vote is very important to us. We hope that your shares may be represented at this meeting and to assure a quorum,you will attend the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders in person. Whether or not you attend in person, please, as soon as possible, indicate your voting instructions by telephone, via the Internet or by signing and returningmailing your signed proxy card in the enclosed proxy promptly. Instructions for indicating your voting instructions by telephone or via the Internet are included on the enclosed proxy. A return addressed envelope, which requires no postage, is enclosed if the Proxy Statement was mailed to you. If you choose to submit your voting instructions by mail. Inattend the event you are able to attendmeeting and wish to vote, in person, at your request we will cancel youryou may withdraw any previously-voted proxy.

By Order of the Board of Directors

JAMES A. YANO

Secretary

Dated: April 9, 2015

By Order of the Board of Directors
melissacenterssig1.jpg
MELISSA A. CENTERS
Secretary
Dated: March 22, 2017


PROXY STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY
1
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE 2017 ANNUAL MEETING AND VOTING
6
PROPOSAL ONE: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
11
Nominees for Class II and Class I Directors
11
Board Recommendation
11
Backgrounds of Class II Director Nominees (Terms Expiring 2020)
11
Background of Class I Director Nominee (Term expiring in 2019)
12
Backgrounds of Continuing Class I Directors (Terms expiring in 2019)
12
Backgrounds of Continuing Class III Directors (Terms expiring in 2018)
13
Majority Voting Policy for Incumbent Directors
14
PROPOSAL TWO: TO ADOPT THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION 2017 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
16
Key Plan Features
17
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code
17
Summary of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan
17
U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences
21
New Plan Benefits
23
Board Recommendation
24
PROPOSAL THREE: RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS THE COMPANY'S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
25
Reasons for Shareholder Approval; Board Recommendation
25
PROPOSAL FOUR: ADVISORY VOTE ON COMPENSATION OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AS DISCLOSED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT
26
Reasons for Shareholder Approval; Board Recommendation
26
PROPOSAL FIVE: ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF CONDUCTING FUTURE ADVISORY VOTES ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
27
Reasons for Shareholder Approval; Board Recommendation
27
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
28
Relationship with State Auto Mutual and Changes in Board Structure
28
Board Responsibility
28
Board Meetings and Attendance
28
Board Composition
29
Board Leadership
30
Committees of the Board of Directors
31
The Board's Role in Enterprise Risk Management
33
Risk Assessment in Compensation Programs
34
Directors
34
Nomination of Directors
34
Director Independence
35
Compensation of Outside Directors and Outside Director Compensation Table
35
2016 Outside Director Compensation
37
Outside Directors' Ownership of Restricted Share Units
37
Communications with the Board
38
Other Governance Issues of Interest
38
Availability of Corporate Governance Documents
38
AUDIT COMMITTEE MATTERS
39
Audit Committee Report for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2016
39

i

LOGO



Page
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm's Audit and Other Service Fees
40
Audit Committee's Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
41
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MATTERS
42
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
42
Compensation Committee Report
42
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
43
Executive Summary
43
Executive Compensation Philosophy
47
How the Amount of Executive Compensation is Determined
48
2016 Executive Compensation Program Elements
50
Looking Forward-2017 Compensation
58
Contractual Arrangements with Named Executive Officers
60
Tax Deductibility of Executive Compensation
61
Stock Ownership Guidelines
61
Clawback Policy
62
Anti-Hedging Policy
62
Summary Compensation Table for 2016
63
Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2016
66
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2016 Year-End
67
Option Exercises and Stock Vested in Fiscal 2016
68
Retirement Plans
68
Pension Benefits in Fiscal 2016
69
Deferred Compensation Plans
69
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation for Fiscal 2016
70
Agreements with Named Executive Officers
71
Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control
75
OWNERSHIP OF EQUITY SECURITIES OF THE COMPANY
78
Beneficial Ownership Information for Directors and Named Executive Officers
78
Principal Holders of Voting Securities
79
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
79
EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION AND BURN RATE
80
Outstanding Options and Available Shares
80
Burn Rate
80
1998 State Auto Agent’s Stock Option Plan
80
RELATED PERSON TRANSACTIONS
81
Policies and Procedures for Review and Approval of Related Person Transactions
81
Transactions Involving State Auto Mutual
81
OTHER MATTERS
83
Other Proposals at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders
83
Future Shareholder Proposals
83
Future Electronic Access to Proxy Materials and the Annual Report
83
Annual Report on Form 10-K and Additional Information About State Auto Financial Corporation
84
Appendix A—State Auto Financial Corporation's 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan
A-1


ii



stfclogobluergb.jpg
STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY

You have received this Proxy Statement because the Board of Directors of STFC is soliciting your proxy to vote your Common Shares at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.


This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this Proxy Statement. Defined terms used in this summary have the meanings given to such terms elsewhere in this Proxy Statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider in voting your Common Shares,common shares, and you should read the entire Proxy Statement carefully before voting. Page references are supplied to help you findFor more detailedcomplete information in this Proxy Statement. The date this Proxy Statement andregarding State Auto Financial Corporation's ("STFC" or "the Company") performance for the related proxy materials are first being sent or given to shareholders and being made availablefiscal year ended December 31, 2016 ("2016 fiscal year"), please review the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the internet is approximately April 9, 2015.

2015 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Time: May 8, 2015, 11:00 a.m., local time

Place: 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

Record Date: You may vote if you were a shareholder of record at the close of business on March 13, 2015 (page 1).

VOTING MATTERS AND BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

2016 fiscal year.
2017 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
Date and Time
May 5, 2017, 11:00 a.m.
local time
Place
518 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Record Date
You may vote if you were a shareholder of record at the close of business on March 10, 2017
VOTING MATTERS AND BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
The following table summarizes the proposals to be voted upon at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and the Board's recommendations with respond to each proposal.

Proposal
Board Vote

Recommendation

Page Reference

(for more detail)

Proposal 1

Election of Directors

FOR each Director Nominee3
11
Vote on Proposed Amendment to Company’s 1991 Employee Stock Purchase And Dividend ReinvestmentProposal 2To Adopt the Material Terms of the State Auto Financial Corporation 2017 Long-Term Incentive PlanFOR9
16
Proposal 3Ratification of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company's Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmFOR12
25
Proposal 4Advisory Vote to Approve Compensation of STFC’sCompany's Named Executive OfficersFOR13
26
Proposal 5Advisory Vote on Whether Future Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation Should Occur Every Year, Every Two Years or Every Three YearsFOR Every Year
27

Our Board of Directors is not aware of any matter that will be presented for a vote at the 20152017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders other than those shown above.

State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company (“("State Auto Mutual”Mutual") owns approximately 62.6%61.8% of the outstanding Common Sharescommon shares of STFC. State Auto Mutual has expressed an intention to vote FOR each of the voting matters listed above.

i

How to Cast Your Vote (as discussed on the proxy card)

You can vote by any of the following methods:




•

CASTING YOUR VOTE
How to Vote
via:Internet
Visit the internet applicable voting website (www.proxyvote.com) until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on May 4, 2017.
(www.proxyvote.com)  Telephone
Within the United States, U.S. Territories, and Canada, call 1-800-690-6903 until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on May 7, 2015;4, 2017.
,

  Mail
Complete, sign, date and return your proxy card or voting instruction form in the self-addressed envelope provided.
?   In Person
Attend the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

via telephone by calling 1-800-690-6903 until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on May 7, 2015;

if you received a proxy card or voting instruction form in the mail, by completing, signing, dating, and returning your proxy card or voting instruction form in the return envelope provided to you in accordance with the instructions provided with the proxy card or voting instruction form; or

in person at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

Director Nominees (pages 3 and 4)

Name  Age 

Director

Since

 

Principal

Occupation

 

Independent

Yes          No

 

Current
Committee

Memberships*

 Other Public
Company
Boards

Michael J.

Fiorile

  60 Nominee President and CEO of Dispatch Printing Co. X   NA  

Michael E.

LaRocco

  58 Nominee President and CEO of STFC, effective May 8, 2015  X NA 

Eileen A.

Mallesch

  59 2010 Retired X  Audit,
N&G,

Risk

 1

Robert P.

Restrepo, Jr.

  64 2006 President and CEO of STFC until May 8, 2015, when Mr. LaRocco will succeed him, and Chairman of STFC   X I&F  

Directors Continuing in Office (pages 5 and 6)

Name Age 

Director

Since

 

Principal

Occupation

 

Independent

Yes          No

 

Current
Committee

Memberships*

 Other Public
Company
Boards

Robert E.

Baker

 68 2007 Executive VP of DHR International, Inc. X  Audit, Comp 

David J.

D’Antoni

 70 1995 Retired X  Comp,
N&G, Indep

Risk

 2

Thomas E.

Markert

 57 2007 Executive VP of Research Now Group, Inc. X  I&F, N&G,

Risk

 

David R.

Meuse

 69 2006 Principal of Stonehenge Partners Corp. X  Audit, I&F 

S. Elaine

Roberts

 62 2002 

President and CEO of Columbus

Regional Airport Authority

 X  I&F, N&G,

Risk

 

Alexander

B. Trevor

 69 2006 President of Nuvocom Inc. X   Comp, I&F,
Indep		  

*Audit = Audit Committee; Comp = Compensation Committee; Indep = Independent Committee;

I&F = Investment and Finance Committee; N&G = Nominating and Governance Committee; Risk = Risk Committee

ii

INFORMATION ABOUT OUR BOARD AND BOARD COMMITTEES (pages 17-19)

   Number
of Members		  Percent
Independent		 Number of  

Meetings During

Fiscal 2014  

Full Board

  9*  89% 5

Audit Committee

  4  100% 8

Compensation Committee

  4  100% 5

Independent Committee

  3  100% 3

Investment and Finance Committee

  5  80% 4

Nominating and Governance Committee

  4  100% 6

Risk Committee

  4  100% 1
         

During 2014, seven Board members attended 100% of the meetings of the Board and Board committees on which they served. Our other two Board members attended 88% or more of the meetings of the Board and Board committees on which they served.

GOVERNANCE FACTS

Size of Board

9* 

Number of Independent Directors

8

Audit Committee Comprised Entirely of Independent Directors

YES

Compensation Committee Comprised Entirely of Independent Directors

YES

Nominating and Governance Committee Comprised Entirely of Independent Directors

YES

Risk Committee Comprised Entirely of Independent Directors

YES

Independent Lead Director

YES

Majority Voting for Election of Directors

NO

Annual Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation

YES

Annual Board and Committee Self-Evaluations

YES

Stock Ownership Guidelines for Directors and Executive Officers

YES

All Current Directors Own Company Stock

YES

Restrictions on Pledging of Company Shares by Directors and Executive Officers

YES

“Clawback” Obligations Imposed on Named Executive Officers

YES

Directors and Executive Officers Permitted to Hedge Company Shares

NO

Directors Involved in Related Party Transactions

NO

Super Majority Vote to Approve Amendments to Charter or Bylaws

NO

Shareholder Rights Plan (Poison Pill)

NO
DIRECTOR NOMINEES

*The size of the Board was increased

You are being asked to ten on March 27, 2015 to accommodate the nomination of Mr. LaRocco as a director. If all four nominees are elected directors on May 8, 2015, there will be ten directorsvote on the Board.

2014 BUSINESS HIGHLIGHTSfollowing three nominees for director. Information about the director nominees' experience, qualifications and skills can be found below at

Highlights"Backgrounds of our 2014 results (on a GAAP basis) include:

net incomeClass II Director Nominees (Terms Expiring in 2020)" and "Background of $107.4 million, which represented an increase of $46.6 million from 2013;

iii

earnings per share of $2.63, which represented an increase of $1.13 from 2013;

combined ratio of 105.5%, which represented a 3.7% deterioration compared to 2013;

non-cat loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) ratio of 68.8%, which represented a 4.0% deterioration compared to 2013;

return on average equity of 13.0%, which represented a 5.0% improvement compared to 2013;

book value per share of $21.32 at December 31, 2014, which represented an increase of $2.05 from December 31, 2013; and

our stock price increased approximately 4.6% from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014.

The portion of the performance-based compensation awarded to our named executive officers (“NEOs”)Class I Director Nominee (Term Expiring in 2014 that will ultimately be earned is determined based on the results we and the State Auto Group achieve with respect to certain of these and other GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. See the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this Proxy Statement for more information regarding our executive compensation program and the performance-based compensation awarded to and earned by our NEOs in 2014.

PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF OUR 2014 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM (page 35)

2019)."
Name Age 
STFC Director
Since
 
Principal
Occupation
 
Independent
Yes          No
 
Current
Committee
Memberships*
 
Other Public
Company
Boards
David R. Meuse
     Lead Director
 71 2006 Principal of Stonehenge Partners Corp. 
   ü
 Audit, Indep, and I&F None
S. Elaine Roberts 64 2002 President and CEO of Columbus Regional Airport Authority 
  ü
 Comp, Indep, N&G, and Risk None
Kym M. Hubbard 59 2016 Retired 
  ü
 Audit, Indep, and I&F None
             
*Audit = Audit Committee; Comp = Compensation Committee; Indep = Independent Committee; I&F = Investment and Finance Committee; N&G = Nominating and Governance Committee; Risk = Risk Committee
DIRECTORS CONTINUING IN OFFICE
Name Age 
STFC Director
Since
 
Principal
Occupation
 
Independent
Yes          No
 
Current
Committee
Memberships*
 
Other Public
Company
Boards
Robert E. Baker 70 2007 Executive Vice President of DHR International, Inc., 
  ü
 Audit and Comp None
Michael J. Fiorile 62 2015 Chairman and CEO of Dispatch Printing Co. 
  ü
 N&G and Risk None
Michael E. LaRocco 60 2015 Chairman, President and CEO of STFC 
           ü   
 I&F None
Eileen A. Mallesch 61 2010 Retired 
  ü
 Audit, Comp, and Indep Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Fifth Third Bancorp and Libbey Inc.
Thomas E. Markert 59 2007 CEO of ORC International 
  ü
 Comp, Indep, N&G and Risk None
             
*Audit = Audit Committee; Comp = Compensation Committee; Indep = Independent Committee; I&F = Investment and Finance Committee; N&G = Nominating and Governance Committee; Risk = Risk Committee


CORPORATE GOVENANCE HIGHLIGHTS
§7 of our 8 directors are independent§Independent Lead Director§Policy prohibiting hedging of Company shares
§Audit Committee is only comprised of independent directors§All current directors own Company common shares or restricted share units§No shareholder rights plan or "poison pill"
§Compensation Committee is only comprised of independent directors§Annual Board and Committee self-evaluations§Majority voting policy for incumbent directors
§Nominating and Governance Committee is only comprised of independent directors§Stock ownership guidelines for directors and executive officers§Restrictions on pledging Company shares by directors and executive officers
§Risk Committee is only comprised of independent directors§Annual advisory vote on executive compensation§No directors are involved in related party transactions
§Compensation "clawback" obligations imposed on Named Executive Officers§Comprehensive Associate Code of Business Conduct and Corporate Governance Guidelines§No super majority vote of shareholders to approve amendments to charters or bylaws approved by two-thirds of the Board
§Board participation in executive succession planning§Over 94% average Board and Committee meeting attendance in 2016§Risk oversight by full Board and committees
2016 BUSINESS SUMMARY
Our 2016 results (on a GAAP basis) include:
§Combined ratio of 106.5%, which represented a 4.7 point increase compared to 2015§Net income of $21.0 million, which represented a decrease of $30.2 million from 2015§Earnings per diluted share of $0.50, which represented a decrease of $0.73 per share from 2015
§Non-cat loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) ratio of 66.6%, which represented a 2.7 point increase compared to 2015§Return on average equity of 2.4%, which represented a 3.4 point decrease compared to 2015§Our stock price increased approximately 30% from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2016
§Book value per share of $21.31 at December 31, 2016, which represented a decrease of $0.09 per share from December 31, 2015
§

Net written premium of $1,293.3 million, which represented a 1.5% increase compared to 2015
§

Net investment income of $74.7 million, which represented a 4.2% increase compared to 2015
IMPACT OF STATE AUTO GROUP ON 2016 COMPENSATION OF NEOs
Because our Named Executive Officers ("NEOs") perform services for the Company, State Auto Mutual and other members of the State Auto Group1, we generally allocated the compensation expenses in 2016 for such services 65% to the Company and its subsidiaries and 35% to State Auto Mutual and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates.
1 The State Auto Group refers to (1) the insurance subsidiaries of State Auto Financial Corporation: State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("State Auto P&C"), Milbank Insurance Company ("Milbank") and State Auto Insurance Company of Ohio ("SAOH") and to (2) State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company ("State Auto Mutual") and its insurance subsidiaries and affiliates: State Auto Insurance Company of Wisconsin ("SAWI"), Meridian Security Insurance Company ("Meridian"), Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut ("Patrons"), Rockhill Insurance Company ("RIC"), Plaza Insurance Company ("Plaza"), American Compensation Insurance Company ("ACIC") and Bloomington Compensation Insurance Company ("BCIC").


PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF OUR 2016 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Component  Form  Key Features

Base Salary

  Cash  

•  

Intended to attract and retain top-caliber executives.

•  

Generally based on the median level of base salary for the executive in our competitive market, but may vary based on the executive’sexecutive's scope of responsibility or unique skills or expertise.

Short-Term Incentive

  Cash  

•  

Intended to focus our executives on achieving the objectives of our annual operating plan.

•  Consistsplan and balance the focus of a Company performance component (65%-75% weighting in 2014) and an individual performance component(25%-35% weighting in 2014).

•  our long-term incentive plans.

Payouts range from 10%2% of target payout to 200% of target payout depending on performance.

Performance Award Units

  Cash  

•  

Intended to encourage business behaviors that drive appreciation in the price of our Common Sharescommon shares over the long term, align the interests of our executives with the interests of our shareholders and balance the focus of our annual operating plan.

•  

Payouts determined based on the performance of the State Auto Group compared to a peer group over a three-year performance period.

•  

Payouts range from 40%13.33% of target payout to 200% of target payout depending on performance.

•  

Represented 65% of the total long-term incentive opportunity awarded to each NEO in 2014.

2016.

Stock Options

  Equity  

•  

Intended to encourage business behaviors that drive appreciation in the price of our Common Sharescommon shares over the long term, align the interests of our executives with the interests of our shareholders and build appropriate levels of Common Sharecommon share ownership among our executive team.

•  

One-third of the total options granted vests on each of the first three anniversariesanniversary of the grant date.

•  

Represented 20% of the total long-term incentive opportunity awarded to each NEO in 2014.

iv

2016.
ComponentFormKey Features

Restricted Common Shares

  Equity  

•  

Intended to reduce our usage of Common Sharescommon shares under our equity compensation plans, align the interests of the NEOs with the interests of our shareholders and encourage associate retention.

•  

Vest on the third anniversary of the grant date.

•  

Represented 15% of the total long-term incentive opportunity awarded to each NEO in 2014.

2016.

Perquisites

  Cash; Benefits  

•  

Intended to attract and retain top-caliber executives.

•  

Are very limited in value and participation.

IMPACT OF STATE AUTO GROUP ON 2014 COMPENSATION OF NEOs (page 27)

BecauseThe portion of the performance-based compensation awarded to our NEOs perform services for 2016 performance is determined by the Company, State Auto Mutualresults that we and other members of the State Auto Group we generally allocatedachieve with respect to certain of these and other financial measures. See below the "Compensation Discussion and Analysis" section of this Proxy Statement for more information regarding our executive compensation expensesprogram and the performance-based compensation awarded to our NEOs in 20142016.




2016 EXECUTIVE COMPENATION HIGHLIGHTS
Base Salary. The salaries of our NEOs increased by approximately 3% in 2016, which is consistent with the practices of other financial services and insurance companies.
Short-Term Cash Compensation. None of the NEOs earned a performance bonus award for such services 65%2016 under the State Auto Financial Corporation One Team Incentive Plan ("OTIP"). The Compensation Committee awarded a discretionary bonus to each NEO under the OTIP in an amount equal to 30% of their OTIP target performance bonus award for 2016 in recognition of external factors and their respective contributions in implementing foundational changes that the Compensation Committee believes will position the Company to achieve improved results and its subsidiaries and 35%deliver shareholder value over the long-term despite the Company’s 2016 results.
Performance Award Units. In 2016, we awarded cash-based performance award units ("PAUs") to our NEOs for the 2016-2018 performance period under the State Auto MutualFinancial Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended ("Existing LTIP").
Equity Compensation. In 2016, we awarded stock options and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates.

2014 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION HIGHLIGHTS (page 26)restricted common shares to our NEOs under the State Auto Financial Corporation 2009 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended ("2009 Equity Plan").

•

Base Salary. The base salaries of our NEOs increased by approximately 3% in 2014. The increases were based on: (i) each NEO’s performance; (ii) increases in the median base salaries for individuals in similar roles at peer companies and other insurers comparable in size to the State Auto Group; and (iii) the Company’s overall merit increase budget and policies.

•

Short-Term Incentive – Company Performance Goals. The payout on the Company performance goals for 2014 as a percentage of the target payout was 146.2% for Messrs. Restrepo, English, Fitch and Yano and 157.5% for Ms. Buss compared to a payout on the Company performance goals for 2013 as a percentage of the target payout of 57.5% for Messrs. Restrepo, English and Yano, 64.3% for Mr. Fitch and 136.0% for Ms. Buss. In August 2014, the Compensation Committee made adjustments to the LBP Combined Ratio, Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio and specialty insurance combined ratio performance measures originally selected for the Company performance component of the LBP for 2014. These adjustments excluded from the LBP Combined Ratio, Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio and specialty insurance combined ratio performance measures $129.7 million in charges related to reserve strengthening for our terminated Risk Evaluation & Design LLC (“RED”) program business and also excluded from the LBP Combined Ratio performance measure $10.6 million in information technology reorganization-related severance expenses and vendor fees (see “Short-Term Incentive Compensation—Leadership Bonus Plan Bonuses—LBP Award Process” for more information regarding these adjustments). Accordingly, the payouts on the Company performance goals for 2014 reflected the Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio (and Adjusted specialty insurance combined ratio in the case of Ms. Buss), return on equity and Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio (and specialty insurance rate change in the case of Ms. Buss) we achieved in 2014. The payouts on the Company performance goals for 2013 reflected the combined ratio (or specialty insurance combined ratio in the case of Ms. Buss), return on equity and non-catastrophe loss ratio (or specialty insurance rate change and standard lines non-catastrophe loss ratio in the case of Ms. Buss and Mr. Fitch, respectively) we achieved in 2013. The Compensation Committee exercised negative discretion to reduce the payouts on the Company performance goals for 2013 to members of certain of the Company’s business units (including the business units of Mr. Fitch and Ms. Buss) by fifteen percent to more equitably allocate the results of RED across all of our business units. As a result, the Compensation Committee reduced the payouts to Mr. Fitch and Ms. Buss for 2013 on the Company performance goals as a percentage of the target payout from 75.6% and 159.3%, respectively.

v

•

Short-Term Incentive—Individual Performance Goals. The payout on the individual performance goals for 2014 as a percentage of the target payout was 50% for Mr. Restrepo, 170% for Mr. English, 170% for Mr. Fitch, 180% for Ms. Buss and 180% for Mr. Yano compared to a payout on the individual performance goals for 2013 as a percentage of the target payout of 90% for Mr. Restrepo, 170% for Mr. English, 144.5% for Mr. Fitch, 136% for Ms. Buss and 180% for Mr. Yano. The payouts on the individual performance goals reflected the individual contributions of each NEO to our results. The Compensation Committee exercised negative discretion to reduce the payouts on the individual performance goals for 2013 to members of certain of the Company’s business units (including the business units of Mr. Fitch and Ms. Buss) by fifteen percent to more equitably allocate the results of RED across all of our business units. As a result, the Compensation Committee reduced the payouts to Mr. Fitch and Ms. Buss for 2013 on the individual performance goals as a percentage of the target payout from 170% and 160%, respectively.

•

Long-Term Incentive—Performance Award Units. Based on preliminary performance information (final information is not yet available) indicating that the State Auto Group’s overall performance for the 2012-2014 performance period relative to a peer group fell within the 40th percentile, we currently expect that the performance award units awarded to our NEOs (except for Ms. Buss) for the 2012-2014 performance period will be valued significantly below target. We currently expect that the PAUs awarded to Ms. Buss for the 2012-2014 performance period will be valued significantly above target. The anticipated payouts on the PAUs awarded to each of the NEOs other than Ms. Buss for the 2012-2014 performance period reflected the statutory combined ratio, net written premium growth (excluding the impact of the quota share reinsurance agreement entered into by the State Auto Group on December 31, 2011 relating to its homeowners book of business (the “Quota Share Agreement”)) and surplus growth of the State Auto Group during the performance period relative to a peer group (excluding the impact of the Quota Share Agreement). The anticipated payout on the PAUs awarded to Ms. Buss for the 2012-2014 performance period reflected the combined ratio, direct written premium growth and surplus growth for our Specialty Group relative to a peer group.

•

Long-Term Incentive – Equity Compensation. In 2014, we awarded stock options and restricted common shares to our NEOs. As of December 31, 2014, the value of the equity compensation we awarded to our NEOs in 2014 was approximately 48% of the targeted value of such equity compensation.

Based on the approval of the “say-on-pay”"say-on-pay" vote at our 20142016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (approximately(by more than 99% of the votes cast), the Compensation Committee did not make any changes to our executive compensation program as a result of the 2014 “say-on-pay”2016 "say-on-pay" vote. See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Executive Summary—Modifications to Executive Compensation Program” on page 30 of this Proxy Statement for a description of the changes we did make to our executive compensation program and practices in 2014.

vi


PROXY STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS



QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE
2017 ANNUAL MEETING AND VOTING

Page

General

1

Proxies and Voting

1

Proposal One: ElectionWhy Did I Receive a Notice of Directors

3

Nominees for Class III Directors

3

Backgrounds of Class III Director Nominees (Terms expiring in 2018)

3

Backgrounds of Continuing Class I Directors (Terms expiring in 2016)

5

Backgrounds of Continuing Class II Directors (Terms expiring in 2017)

5

Majority Voting Policy for Incumbent Directors

6

Beneficial Ownership Information for Directors and Named Executive Officers

7

Proposal Two: Approval of Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan

9

Proposal

9

Shares Subject to the Plan

9

Description of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan

9

Federal Income Tax Information

10

2014 Information Pertaining to Named Executive Officers and Other Groups

11

Reasons for Shareholder Approval

11

Proposal Three: Ratification of Selection of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

12

Proposal Four: Advisory Vote on Compensation of Named Executive Officers as Disclosed in this Proxy Statement

13

Corporate Governance and Board of Directors

14

Relationship with State Auto Mutual and Changes in Board Structure

14

Director Independence

15

Board and Executive Leadership: CEO Succession

15

Board Meetings and Board Committee Meetings

17

Independent Committees of STFC and State Auto Mutual

18

Executive Sessions of Independent Directors

19

Compensation of Outside Directors and Outside Director Compensation Table

19

2014 Outside Director Compensation

21

Outside Directors’ Ownership of Restricted Share Units

21

Communications with the Board

21

Director Attendance at Annual Meeting of Shareholders

22

Nomination of Directors

22

Other Governance Issues of Interest

23

Internet Availability of Corporate Governance Documents

24

Enterprise Risk Management

24

The Board’s RoleProxy Materials in Enterprise Risk Management

24

Risk Assessment in Compensation Programs

25

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

26

Executive Summary

26

Executive Compensation Philosophy

32

How the AmountMail Instead of Executive Compensation is Determined

33

Executive Compensation Program Elements

35

Contractual Arrangements with Named Executive Officers

50

Tax Deductibilitya Full Set of Executive Compensation

50

Stock Ownership Guidelines

51

Anti-Hedging Policy

52

Summary Compensation Table for 2014

53

Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2014

56

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2014 Year-End

58Printed Proxy Materials?

vii

Pursuant to rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), we are making our proxy materials available to our shareholders electronically via the Internet. On or about March 22, 2017, we will mail the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials to our shareholders who held shares at the close of business on the record date, other than those shareholders who previously requested paper delivery of communications from us. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials contains instructions on how to access an electronic version of our proxy materials, including this Proxy Statement and our 2016 Annual Report, which includes our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 2016 fiscal year. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials also contains instructions on how to request a paper copy of this Proxy Statement, including a form of proxy. The Company believes that this process will allow us to provide you with the information you need in a timely manner, while conserving natural resources and lowering the costs of printing and distributing our proxy materials.
Page

Option Exercises and Stock Vested in Fiscal 2014

59

Retirement Plans

59

Pension Benefits in Fiscal 2014

60

Deferred Compensation Plans

60

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation for Fiscal 2014

61

Agreements with Named Executive Officers

62

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control

65

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

71

Compensation Committee Report

71

Report of the Audit Committee

72

Principal Holders of Voting Securities

74

Equity Compensation Plan Information

74

1998 State Auto Agent’s Stock Option Plan

74

Related Person Transactions

76

Policies and Procedures for Review and Approval of Related Person Transactions

76

Transactions Involving State Auto Mutual

76

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

78

General

78

Audit and Other Services Fees

79

Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

79

Future Shareholder Proposals

79

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

80

Other Matters

80

Exhibit A—State Auto Financial Corporation 1991 Employee Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan, including proposed amendment

A-1Why Did I Receive These Proxy Materials?

viii

LOGO

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

PROXY STATEMENT

GENERAL

This Proxy Statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation of proxies by

You received these proxy materials because the Board of Directors of State Auto Financial Corporation (the “Company” or “STFC”)is soliciting a proxy to be usedvote your shares at itsthe 2017 Annual Meeting of the Shareholders to be held May 8, 2015 (the “Annual Meeting”"Annual Meeting"). Shares represented byThis Proxy Statement contains information that we are required to provide to you under the rules of the SEC and is intended to assist you in making an informed vote.
All properly executed written proxies and all properly completed proxies submitted by telephone or Internet that are delivered pursuant to this solicitation will be voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with the choices indicated ondirections given in the proxy. A proxy, may beunless the proxy is revoked at any time, insofar as it has not been exercised, by delivery tobefore the Companycompletion of a subsequently dated proxy or by giving notice of revocation to the Company in writing or in open meeting. A shareholder’s presencevoting at the Annual Meeting.
What is a Proxy?
A proxy is your legal designation of another person to vote the stock you own. The Board of Directors has designated Michael E. LaRocco, and in the event he is unable to act Melissa A. Centers and Steven E. English, to act as the proxy for the Annual Meeting.
What is the Record Date?
The record date for the Annual Meeting does notis March 10, 2017 (the "Record Date"). The Record Date is established by itself revoke the proxy.

The mailing addressBoard of the principal executive officesDirectors as required by Ohio law. Only shareholders of record at the Company is 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. The approximate date on which this Proxy Statement and the form of proxy are first being sent or given to shareholders is April 9, 2015.

This Proxy Statement, the form of proxy, and the Company’s 2014 Annual Report to Shareholders are available atwww.proxyvote.com.

PROXIES AND VOTING

The close of business on March 13, 2015 has been fixed as the record date for the determination of shareholdersRecord Date are entitled toto: (a) receive notice of the Annual Meeting and to(b) vote at the Annual Meeting and at any adjournment thereof. On the record date there were outstanding and entitled to vote 41,113,480 of the Company’s common shares, without par value (the “Common Shares”). meeting.

Each Common Shareshareholder of record on the Record Date is entitled to one vote.

A quorumvote for each common share held. On the Record Date, there were 41,986,179 common shares outstanding.

What is the Difference Between a Shareholder of Record and a Shareholder Who Holds Common Shares in Street Name?
If your common shares are registered in your name with the Company's transfer agent, you are considered a "shareholder of record" of those shares. Alternatively, if your common shares are held for you in the name of your broker, bank or other similar organization, your shares are held in "street name." If your shares are held in "street name," you are the beneficial owner of those shares and the organization is the "shareholder of record," not you.
It is important that you vote your shares if you are a shareholder of record and, if you hold shares in street name, that you provide appropriate voting instructions to your broker, bank or other similar institutions as discussed in the answer below to "Will My Shares Be Voted if I Do Not Provide My Proxy or Voting Instructions?"



What Are the Different Methods That I Can Use to Vote My Shares of Common Shares?
By Telephone or Internet: All shareholders of record may vote their common shares by telephone (within the United States, U.S. territories and Canada, there is no charge for the call) or by the Internet, using the procedures and instructions described in the proxy card and other enclosures. Street name holders may vote by telephone or the Internet if their brokers, bankers or other similar institutions make those methods available. If that is the case, each broker, bank or other similar institution will enclose instructions with the proxy card.
In Writing: All shareholders also may vote by mailing their completed and signed proxy card (in the case of shareholders of record) or their completed and signed voting instruction form (in case of street name holders).
In Person: All shareholders of record may vote in person at the Annual Meeting. Street name holders must be present atobtain a legal proxy from their broker, bank or other similar institution and bring the legal proxy to the Annual Meeting in order for the transaction of business to occur. A quorum is present if a majority of the outstanding Common Shares is presentvote in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes will be considered as Common Shares present at the Annual Meeting for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum.

“Broker non-votes” and “broker discretionary voting” refer to the rules governing whether or not banks, brokers and other intermediaries (hereafter referred to collectively as “brokers”) may vote Common Shares held in street name for the benefit of their customers. In general, brokers have discretionary voting authority on behalf of their customers with respect to “routine” matters when they do not receive timely voting instructions from their customers. Brokers do not have discretionary voting authority on behalf of their customers with respect to “non-routine” matters, and a broker non-vote occurs when a broker does not receive voting instructions from its customer on a non-routine matter.

For Proposal One (election of Class III directors), the nominees receiving the highest number of votes will be elected as directors. Shareholders do not have the right to cumulate their votes in the election of directors. Abstentions will not be counted in determining the votes cast for the election of directors and will not have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of the election. Proposal One is considered a non-routine matter under the broker discretionary voting rules, and therefore, brokers may not vote uninstructed Common Shares in the

election of directors. Accordingly, if you hold your Common Shares in street name and you do not provide voting instructions to your broker as to how you want your Common Shares voted in the election of directors, no vote will be cast on your behalf. Therefore, it is important that you provide voting instructions to your broker if you want your vote to count in the election of directors.

For Proposal Two (approval of an amendment to the Company’s 1991 Employee Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Employee Stock Purchase Plan”)), the vote required to approve this Proposal is the favorable vote of a majority of the outstanding Common Shares voted on such Proposal. Abstentions on this Proposal have the same effect as a vote against it. Proposal Two is considered a non-routine matter, so if you do not instruct your broker as to how you want your Common Shares voted on this Proposal, no vote will be cast on your behalf. Therefore, it is important that you provide voting instructions to your broker if you want your vote to count regarding Proposal Two.

For Proposal Three (ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm), the vote required to approve such Proposal is the favorable vote of a majority of the outstanding Common Shares that are voted on such Proposal. Abstentions on this Proposal will have the same effect as a vote against it. This Proposal is considered a routine matter, which means that if you hold your Common Shares in street name and do not provide, in a timely manner, voting instructions to your broker as to how you want your Common Shares voted on Proposal Three, your broker may vote your Common Shares on this Proposal at its discretion.

Proposal Four (vote on compensation to the Company’s named executive officers as described in this Proxy Statement) is advisory only and therefore is not binding on our Board of Directors. However, the Compensation Committee may take into account the outcome of Proposal Four when considering future executive compensation arrangements. Abstentions on Proposal Four have the same effect as not voting or expressing a preference, as the case may be, and will not have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of this Proposal. Proposal Four is considered a non-routine matter, so if you do not instruct your broker as to how you want your Common Shares voted on this Proposal, no vote will be cast on your behalf. Therefore, it is important that you provide voting instructions to your broker if you want your vote to count regarding Proposal Four.

person.

All Common Shares represented by properly executed proxies will be voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with the choices indicated on the proxy. If no choices are indicated on a proxy, the Common Shares represented by that proxy will be voted as follows: (1) for the election of the nominees listed in this See also "Proxy Statement as Class III directors; (2)Summary—Casting Your Vote" for the approval of an amendment to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan; (3) for the ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2015; and (4) for the approval of the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as disclosed in this Proxy Statement. Any proxy may be revoked at any time prior to its exercise by delivering to the Company a subsequently dated proxy or by giving notice of revocation to the Company in writing or in open meeting. A shareholder’s presence at the Annual Meeting does not by itself revoke the proxy.more information.

STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“

What Items Will Be Voted on at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholder?
ProposalVoting Options, Board Recommendations and Voting Requirement
Proposal 1
Election of Directors
Voting Options
Ÿ  Vote for a nominee;
Ÿ  Vote against a nominee; or
Ÿ  Withhold authority to vote for a nominee.

Board Recommendation
The Board unanimously recommends a vote "FOR" each of the nominees in the Proxy Statement.

Voting Requirement
Nominees receiving the highest number of votes will be elected as directors. Shareholders do not have the right to cumulate their votes in the election of directors.

Any incumbent director who does not receive the vote of at least the majority of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting is required to promptly offer in writing his or her resignation to the Board in accordance with the Company's Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Nominating and Governance Committee will consider the offer and recommend to the Board whether to accept the offer. The full Board will consider all factors it deems relevant to the best interests of the Company, make a determination and publicly disclose its decision and rationale within 90 days after confirmation of election results. See below "Majority Voting Policy for Incumbent Directors."
Proposal 2
To Adopt the Material Terms of the Company's 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan

Voting Options
Ÿ  Vote for the adoption;
Ÿ  Vote against the adoption; or
Ÿ  Abstain from voting.

Board Recommendation
The Board unanimously recommends a vote "FOR" the adoption of the material terms of Company's 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan.

Voting Requirement
The material terms of the Company's 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will be adopted if the votes cast "FOR" exceed the votes cast "AGAINST."
Proposal 3
Ratification of the Selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company's Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Voting Options
Ÿ  Vote for the ratification;
Ÿ  Vote against the ratification; or
Ÿ  Abstain from voting.

Board Recommendation
The Board recommends a vote "FOR" this proposal.

Voting Requirement
The selection of the independent registered public accounting firm will be ratified if the votes cast "FOR" exceed the votes cast "AGAINST."


Proposal 4
Non-Binding Advisory Vote to Approve the Compensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers
Voting Options
Ÿ  Vote for approval of the compensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers;
Ÿ  Vote against approval of the compensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers; or
Ÿ  Abstain from voting.

Board Recommendation
The Board recommends a vote "FOR" this proposal.

Voting Requirement
The compensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers will be approved on an advisory basis if the votes cast "FOR" exceed the votes cast "AGAINST."
This vote is not binding on the Company, the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee. Nevertheless, the Compensation Committee values the opinions expressed by shareholders through their vote on this proposal and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions for the Company's Named Executive Officers.
Proposal 5
Non-Binding Advisory Vote on the Frequency of Conducting Future Advisory Votes on Executive Compensation
Voting Options
Ÿ  Vote for conducting future advisory votes on executive compensation every year;
Ÿ  Vote for conducting future advisory votes on executive compensation every two years;
Ÿ  Vote for conducting future advisory votes on executive compensation every three years; or
Ÿ  Abstain from voting.

Board Recommendation
The Board recommends a vote for conducting future advisory votes on executive compensation every year.

Voting Requirement
The option of once every year, two years or three years that receives the highest number of votes cast will be determined to be the preferred frequency with which the Company is to hold a shareholder vote to approve the compensation of its Named Executive Officers.

This vote is not binding on the Company, the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee. Nevertheless, the Compensation Committee values the opinions expressed by shareholders through their vote on this proposal and will consider the outcome of the vote when making the decision as to the timing for conducting future advisory votes on executive compensation.
STATE AUTO MUTUAL”),MUTUAL, WHICH OWNS APPROXIMATELY 62.6%61.8% OF THE OUTSTANDING COMMON SHARES, HAS EXPRESSED AN INTENTION TO VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF THE NOMINEES LISTED IN PROPOSAL ONE OF THIS PROXY STATEMENT, AND IN FAVOR OF EACH OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS TWO, THREE AND FOUR AS DESCRIBED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT, AND FOR EVERY YEAR IN PROPOSAL FIVE OF THIS PROXY STATEMENT.
Are Votes Confidential?
It is our long-standing practice to hold the votes of each shareholder in confidence from directors, officers and employees, except: (a) as necessary to meet applicable legal requirements and to assert or defend claims for or against the Company; (b) in the case of a contested proxy solicitation; (c) if a shareholder makes a written comment on the proxy card or otherwise communicates his or her vote to the Company; or (d) to allow the inspectors of election to certify the results of the vote.
Who Will Count the Votes Case at the Annual Meeting?
The Company will appoint one or more inspectors of election to serve at the Annual Meeting. The inspectors of election for the Annual Meeting will determine the number of votes cast by holders of common shares for all matters. Preliminary voting results will be announced at the Annual Meeting, if practicable, and final results will be announced when certified by the inspectors of election.
How Can I Find the Voting Results of the Annual Meeting?
We will include the voting results in a Current Report on Form 8-K, which we will file with the SEC no later than four business days following the completion of the Annual Meeting. We will amend this filing to include final results if the inspectors of election have not certified the results by the time the original Current Report on Form 8-K is filed.


What Happens if I Do Not Specify a Choice For a Matter When Returning A Proxy?
Shareholders should specify their voting choice for each matter on the accompanying proxy card. If you sign and return your proxy card, yet do not make a specific choice for one or more matters, unvoted matters will be voted

(1) "FOR" the election of the nominees listed in this proxy statement as Class II and Class I directors; (2) "FOR" the adoption of the material terms of the State Auto Financial Corporation 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan; (3) "FOR" the ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm for 2017; (4) "FOR" the approval of the compensation of the Company's Named Executive Officers as disclosed in this Proxy Statement; and (5) "FOR" holding an advisory vote on executive compensation every year.

What Does it Mean if I Receive More Than One Proxy Card?
It means that you have multiple accounts with brokers and/or our transfer agent. Please vote all of the shares represented by each proxy card. We recommend that you contact your broker or our transfer agent to consolidate as many accounts as possible under the same address. Our transfer agent is Computershare.
Will My Shares Be Voted if I Do Not Provide My Proxy or Voting Instructions?
Shareholders of Record: If you are a shareholder of record, your shares will not be voted if you do not provide your proxy unless you vote in person at the Annual Meeting.It is, therefore, important that you vote your shares.
Street Name Holders: If your shares are held in street name and you do not provide your voting instructions to your bank, broker or other similar institution, your shares will be voted by your broker, bank or similar institution only under certain circumstances. In general, banks, brokers and other similar institutions have discretionary voting authority on behalf of their customers with respect to "routine" matters when they do not receive timely voting instructions from their customers. Banks, brokers and other similar institutions do not have discretionary voting authority on behalf of their customers with respect to "non-routine" matters, and a broker non-vote occurs when a broker does not receive voting instructions from its customer on a non-routine matter.
Only the ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm is considered a "routine" matter for which brokers, banks or other similar institutions may vote uninstructed shares. The other proposals to be voted on at the Annual Meeting are considered "non-routine" matters, so the broker, bank or other similar institution cannot vote your shares on any of the other proposals unless you provide the broker, bank or other similar institution voting instructions for each of these matters. If you do not provide voting instructions on a non-routine matter, your shares will not be voted on that matter, which is referred to as a "broker non-vote." It is, therefore, important that you vote your shares.
Are Abstentions and Broker Non-Votes Counted?
Abstentions and broker non-votes on one or more matters to be voted on at the Annual Meeting will not be considered votes cast and, therefore, will not affect the outcome of the vote on those matters at the Annual Meeting.
How Can I Revoke a Proxy or Change My Vote?
If you are a shareholder of record, you can revoke a proxy or change your vote before the completion of voting at the Annual Meeting by: (a) giving written notice to the Company's Corporate Secretary by e-mail to corporatesecretary@stateauto.com or in writing to the Corporate Secretary at our principal executive offices, 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; (b) delivering a later-dated proxy; or (c) voting in person at the meeting.
If your shares are held in a street name, you should follow the instructions provided by your broker, bank or other similar institution to revoke or change your voting instructions.
Who Will Pay For the Cost of the Proxy Solicitation?
We will bear the cost of solicitation of proxies. In addition to the use of the mail, proxies may be solicited personally, by telephone or electronic mail. Proxies may be solicited by our directors, officers and regular employees, who will not receive any additional compensation for their solicitation services. We will reimburse banks, brokers and nominees for their out-of-pocket expenses


incurred in sending proxy material to the beneficial owners of shares held by them. If there are follow-up requests for proxies, we may employ other persons for such purpose.
Who Can Attend the 2017 Annual Meeting?
Only shareholders who owned shares as of the record date are permitted to attend the Annual Meeting. If you hold your shares through a broker, bank or similar institution, you may attend the Annual Meeting only if you bring a legal proxy or a copy of the statement (such as a brokerage statement) from your broker, bank or other record owner reflecting your stock ownership as of the record date. Additionally, in order to be admitted to the Annual Meeting, all shareholders who are not employees of the State Auto Group must present a government-issued picture identification to verify their identity.
May Shareholders Ask Questions at the Annual Meeting?
Yes. Michael E. LaRocco, our Chairman, President and CEO, will answer shareholders' questions during the question and answer period of the Annual Meeting. In order to provide an opportunity for everyone who wishes to ask a question, each shareholder will be limited to two minutes. Shareholders may ask a second question if all others have first had their turn and if time allows. When speaking, shareholders must direct questions to the Chairman and confine their questions to matters that directly relate to the business of the Annual Meeting.
How Many Votes Must Be Present to Hold the Annual Meeting?
In order for us to conduct the Annual Meeting, a majority of the Company's outstanding common shares as of the record date for the meeting (March 10, 2017), must be present in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting. This is referred to as a quorum.
Your shares are counted as present at the Annual Meeting if you attend the meeting and vote in person or if you properly return a proxy by Internet, telephone or mail.
Abstentions and shares of record held by a broker, bank or other similar institution ("broker shares") that are voted on any matter are also included in determining the number of shares present. Broker shares that are not voted on any matter will not be included in determining whether a quorum is present.


PROPOSAL ONE: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Nominees for Class III Directors

Nominees for Class II and Class I Directors
The number of directors wasis currently fixed at nine during 2014, but has been expanded to ten in 2015.nine. Our Board of Directors is divided into three classes,classes: Class I, Class II and Class III, with three directors in each of Class I and II and four directors in Class III.class. The term of office of directors in one Classclass expires annually at each annual meeting of shareholders at such time as their successors are elected and qualified. Directors in each Classclass are elected for three-year terms.

The term of office of the Class IIIII directors expires concurrently with the holding of the Annual Meeting. Eileen A. Mallesch, Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., Michael J. FiorileDavid R. Meuse and Michael E. LaRocco, the four personsS. Elaine Roberts, both recommended by the Nominating and Governance Committee of our Board of Directors, have been nominated for election as Class IIIII directors at the Annual Meeting.Meeting for a three-year term expiring at the 2020 annual meeting of shareholders. Mr. Meuse and Ms. Mallesch and Mr. RestrepoRoberts are incumbent Class IIIII directors. Mr. LaRocco has signed an employment agreement to become our President and Chief Executive Officer effective May 8, 2015, succeeding Mr. Restrepo whose term of office for these positions will end on May 8. Mr. Restrepo will remain a director of our Company and Chairman of our Board until his retirement on December 31, 2015, at which time his term as a director and our Chairman will end. Paul S. Williams,
David J. D'Antoni, who is currently the other Class IIIII director, previously informedis retiring from the Board concurrently with the holding of the Annual Meeting. Our Nominating and Governance Committee has reviewed potential candidates to replace Mr. D'Antoni but has not made any recommendations to our Board, thereby creating a vacancy in the Class II directors. No decision has been made to fill this vacancy. Our Board of Directors believes that it is desirable to have a vacancy available should a person who could make a valuable contribution as a director become available.
Kym M. Hubbard was appointed by the Board of Directors in September 2016 to fill a vacancy among the Class I directors, in accordance with the Company's Code of Regulations. In accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, our shareholders will be given the opportunity to elect Ms. Hubbard as a director at our Annual Meeting. On the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, that he would not standour Board has nominated Ms. Hubbard for re-electionelection as a Class I director of the Company at the Annual Meeting and Mr. Michael J. Fiorile has been nominated as Mr. Williams’ successor. See “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors—Relationship with State Auto Mutual and Changes in Board Structure” for additional information concerninga two-year term expiring at the background of Mr. Fiorile’s nomination as a director.

At the Annual Meeting, it is the intention of the persons named in the accompanying form of proxy, unless a contrary position is indicated on such proxy, to vote the proxy for the election of the four nominees named below as Class III directors, each to hold office until the 20182019 annual meeting of shareholders and until a successor is elected and qualified. shareholders.

Each of the nominees has consented to being named in this Proxy Statement and to serve if elected. In the event that any nominee named below is unable to serve (which is not anticipated), the persons named in the proxy may vote it for another nominee of their choice.

Proxies cannot be voted at the Annual Meeting for a greater number of persons than the fourthree nominees named in this Proxy Statement.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE FOUR NOMINEES NAMED BELOW AS CLASS III DIRECTORS.

Backgrounds of Class III Director Nominees (Terms expiring in 2018)

Michael J. Fiorile

Michael J. Fiorile, 60, has served as Chief Executive Officer of The Dispatch Printing Company, a privately owned, regional print and broadcast media company, since January 2008 and as its President since January 2005. He also has served as Vice Chairman and CEO of the company’s subsidiary, Dispatch Broadcast Group, which includes television and radio stations and cable operations, since 1994.

Board Recommendation
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE TWO NOMINEES NAMED BELOW AS CLASS II DIRECTORS AND "FOR" THE ELECTION OF THE PERSON NAMED BELOW AS A NOMINEEE FOR CLASS I DIRECTOR.
Backgrounds of Class II Director Nominees (Terms Expiring in 2020)
David R. Meuse
meusebw.jpg
Age: 71
STFC Director Since: 2006
Committees Served in 2016: Audit, Independent, and Investment and Finance (Chair)
Mr. Fiorile has been a director of State Auto Mutual since 2003.

Mr. Fiorile has been nominated for election as a director because of his extensive experience as a senior executive of a privately held corporation, in particular his management experience with the operation of regulated entities. Mr. Fiorile also brings his extensive experience and familiarity with the State Auto Group (as defined on Page 76), having served as a member of the State Auto Mutual Board of Directors since November 2003 and on the Board’s Nominating and Governance Committee, 2004 to present; Independent Committee, 2004 to present; Investment and Finance Committee, 2004 – 2007; Compensation Committee 2013 to present; and Risk Committee, 2014 to present.

Michael E. LaRocco

Michael E. LaRocco, 58, will become our President and Chief Executive Officer effective May 8, 2015. Mr. LaRocco has been with Business Insurance Direct, LLC (“BID”), an online seller of general liability and property insurance to small businesses, since December 2011. From January 2013 to July 2014, he was Chief Executive Officer of AssureStart Insurance Agency LLC (“AssureStart”), an online seller of general liability and property insurance to small businesses. BID had owned a minority interest in AssureStart until selling its interest to the majority owner of AssureStart in December 2014. Mr. LaRocco served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, a property and casualty insurance company, from March 2008 to July 2011. Previously, he was an executive for Safeco Insurance Companies, which are property and casualty insurance companies, from July 2001 to July 2006.

Mr. LaRocco has been nominated for election as a director of the Company because of his extensive and valuable experience gained over his career in the property and casualty insurance industry, including underwriting, sales, marketing, general management and many years as a senior executive of property and casualty insurance companies. In addition, he brings valuable experience in strategic planning, leadership development, product development and on-line marketing.

Eileen A. Mallesch

Eileen A. Mallesch, 59, has been a director since August 2010. Ms. Mallesch served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company from November 2005 to December 2009. She served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Genworth Life Insurance Company from April 2003 to November 2005. Prior to that, she was Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of General Electric Financial Employer Services Group from 2000 to 2003. Ms. Mallesch is also a director of Bob Evans Farms, Inc., a publicly traded restaurant and food products company.

Ms. Mallesch has been nominated for re-election as a director because of her extensive knowledge and experience in the areas of auditing, finance, enterprise risk management, taxation and mergers and acquisitions, in particular in the insurance industry. She also brings gender diversity to the Board.

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., 64, has been a director since 2006, when he was appointed to the Board in connection with being retained as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Mr. RestrepoMeuse has served as the Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“State Auto P&C”) and Milbank Insurance Company (“Milbank”), each a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and of State Auto Mutual,Company's Lead Director since 2006.

Mr. Restrepo has been nominated for re-election as a director because of his extensive and valuable experience in operations, marketing, sales, and general management of a property and casualty insurance company, including his unique knowledge and understanding of the Company’s operations as a result of his more than nine years in serving as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer. He also has valuable experience in acquisitions, strategic planning and leadership development.

In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Restrepo will retire as an employee of the Company no later than December 31, 2015. He will continue to serve as our President and Chief Executive Officer until May 8, 2015, when he will be succeeded by Mr. LaRocco. Mr. Restrepo will remain as a director of our Company and Chairman of our Board until his retirement on December 31, 2015, at which time his term as a director and our Chairman will end. See “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors—Board and Executive Leadership: CEO Succession” for additional information concerning this succession process.

Backgrounds of Continuing Class I Directors (Terms expiring in 2016)

Robert E. Baker

Robert E. Baker, 68, has been a director since 2007. Mr. Baker has served as Executive Vice President of DHR International, Inc., an executive search firm, since June 2010. Mr. Baker was President of Puroast Coffee Inc., a maker of specialty coffee products, from 2004 until accepting his current position. He served as Vice President of Corporate Marketing for ConAgra Foods, Inc., one of North America’s largest packaged food companies, from 1999 to 2004. Mr. Baker was a director of CoolBrands International Inc., a publicly traded Canadian corporation focused on the marketing and selling of ice cream and frozen snack products, from February 2006 to November 2007. He was also a director of Natural Golf Corporation, a publicly traded company offering golf instruction and equipment, from 2004 to 2006. Mr. Baker was elected as a director of State Auto Mutual in March 2015. See “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors—Relationship with State Auto Mutual and Changes in Board Structure” for additional information concerning the background of Mr. Baker’s election as a director of State Auto Mutual.

Mr. Baker was last nominated in 2013 to serve as a director because of his experience as a senior executive of both publicly traded and privately held companies and his former experience as a director of publicly traded companies. He also brings racial and geographic diversity to the Board. In addition, Mr. Baker brings significant expertise in marketing, strategic planning and branding to the Board.

Thomas E. Markert

Thomas E. Markert, 57, has been a director since 2007. Mr. Markert has served as Executive Vice President of Research Now Group, Inc., a global online sampling and online data collection company, since August 2014. Mr. Markert was the Chief Executive Officer of Digital Tailwind LLC, a digital marketing agency, from March 2012 until July 2014. Mr. Markert was an officer of the Business Solutions Division of Office Depot, Inc., a global supplier of office products and services, from May 2008 until March 2012. He served as the Chief Executive Officer of Ipsos Loyalty Worldwide, a division of Ipsos, a leading global provider of survey-based research, from May 2007 to May 2008. He also served as Global Chief Marketing and Client Service Officer of ACNielsen, a leading global provider of marketing research and information services, from January 2004 until May 2007.

Mr. Markert was last nominated in 2013 to serve as a director because of his experience as a senior executive of both publicly traded and privately held companies. He also brings geographic diversity to the Board. In addition, Mr. Markert brings significant expertise in marketing, branding and market research to the Board.

Alexander B. Trevor

Alexander B. Trevor, 69, has been a director since 2006. Mr. Trevor has served as President of Nuvocom Incorporated, a provider of patent litigation support services, since October 1996. He was a director of Applied Innovation Inc., a publicly traded provider of network management solutions for the communications industry, from 1997 to May 2007.

Mr. Trevor was last nominated in 2013 to serve as a director because of his experience as a senior executive and his former experience as a director of a publicly traded company. He also brings geographic diversity to the Board. In addition, Mr. Trevor brings expertise in information technology and computer systems to the Board.

Backgrounds of Continuing Class II Directors (Terms expiring in 2017)

David J. D’Antoni

David J. D’Antoni, 70, has been a director since 1995. Mr. D’Antoni served as Senior Vice President and Group Operating Officer for Ashland, Inc., a chemical, energy and transportation construction company, from

March 1999 until his retirement in September 2004. He also served as President of APAC, Inc., a subsidiary of Ashland, Inc., from July 2003 until January 2004. Mr. D’Antoni is also a director of OMNOVA Solutions Inc., a publicly traded producer of decorative and functional surfaces, coatings and specialty chemicals, and Compass Minerals International, Inc., a publicly traded producer and distributor of inorganic minerals.

Mr. D’Antoni was last nominated in 2014 to serve as a director because of his experience as a senior executive of a publicly traded company, his experience as a director of publicly traded companies, and his knowledge with general management, acquisitions and divestitures. In addition, Mr. D’Antoni brings significant expertise in regulatory and environmental, health and safety matters to the Board.

David R. Meuse

David R. Meuse, 69, has been a director since 2006. Mr. Meuse has served as Principal of Stonehenge Partners Corp., a privately held provider of financial and advisory resources, since September 1999. Prior to that time, Mr. Meuse held executive positions at various investment banking firms, including Banc One Capital Holdings Corporation and Meuse, Rinker, Chapman, Endres & Brooks. Mr. Meuse was a director of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc., a publicly traded company providing investment advisory and fund administration services, from August 2000 to April 2011. Mr. Meuse also serves on the board of directors of several privately held companies and non-profit organizations.



Mr. Meuse was lasthas been nominated in 2014 to servefor election as a director because of his experience as a senior executive, his former experience as a director of publicly traded companies, and his knowledge with acquisitions and divestitures. In addition, Mr. Meuse brings significant expertise in investments, investment management, and financial market matters to the Board.

S. Elaine Roberts

S. Elaine Roberts, 62, has been a director since 2002.

S. Elaine Roberts
robertsbw.jpg
Age: 64
STFC Director Since:  2002
Committees Served in 2016:  Compensation, Independent, Nominating and Governance, and Risk
Ms. Roberts has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Columbus Regional Airport Authority, a public port authority which oversees the operations of PortJohn Glenn Columbus International, Rickenbacker International and Bolton Field airports, in Ohio since January 2003.

Ms. Roberts was lasthas been nominated in 2014 to servefor election as a director because of her experience as a senior executive, in particular her senior management experience with the operation of a regulated entity. Ms. Roberts also has a legal background as an attorney, and she brings gender diversity to the Board.

Majority Voting Policy
Background of Class I Director Nominee (Term Expiring in 2019)
Kym M. Hubbard
hubbardbw.jpg
Age:  59
STFC Director Since:  September 2016
Committees Served in 2016: Audit, Independent, and Investment and Finance
Ms. Hubbard served as Treasurer, Chief Investment Officer, and Global Investment Head of Ernst & Young LLP, a global assurance, tax and advisory services company, from July 2008 until her retirement in April 2016. Prior to joining Ernst & Young LLP, Ms. Hubbard served as the Executive Director of the Illinois Finance Authority, a component unit of the State of Illinois that provides capital access services for Incumbent Directorsnon-profit and for-profit entities in Illinois, from 2006 until 2008. Ms. Hubbard has also served as a Trustee for PIMCO Funds, PIMCO Variable Insurance Trust and PIMCO EFT Trust since February 2017.
Ms. Hubbard has been nominated for election as a director because of her extensive knowledge and experience in the areas of investments and finance. She also brings gender and racial diversity to the Board.
Backgrounds of Continuing Class I Directors (Terms expiring in 2019)
Robert E. Baker
bakerbw.jpg
Age: 70
STFC Director Since:  2007
Committees Served in 2016:  Audit and Compensation (Chair)
Mr. Baker has also been a director of State Auto Mutual since March 2015. Mr. Baker has served as Executive Vice President of DHR International, Inc., an executive search firm, since June 2010. Mr. Baker was President of Puroast Coffee Inc., a maker of specialty coffee products, from 2004 until accepting his current position. He served as Vice President of Corporate Marketing for ConAgra Foods, Inc., one of North America’s largest packaged food companies, from 1999 to 2004. Mr. Baker was a director of CoolBrands International Inc., a publicly traded Canadian corporation focused on the manufacturing and marketing of ice cream


and frozen snack products, from February 2006 to November 2007. He was also a director of Natural Golf Corporation, a publicly traded company offering golf instruction and equipment, from 2004 to 2006.
Mr. Baker was nominated in 2016 to serve as a director because of his experience as a senior executive of both publicly traded and privately held companies and his former experience as a director of publicly traded companies. He also brings racial and geographic diversity to the Board. In addition, Mr. Baker brings significant expertise in compensation, marketing, strategic planning and branding to the Board.                                            
Thomas E. Markert
markertbw.jpg
Age:  59
STFC Director Since:  2007
Committees Served in 2016:  Compensation, Independent (Chair), Nominating and Governance, and Risk
Mr. Markert has served as the CEO of ORC International, one of the world's leading market research companies, since November 2016. He served as Executive Vice President of Research Now Group, Inc., a global online sampling and online data collection company, from August 2014 until November 2015; as the Chief Executive Officer of Digital Tailwind LLC, a digital marketing agency, from April 2012 until May 2014; as an officer of the Business Solutions Division of Office Depot, Inc., a global supplier of office products and services, from May 2008 until April 2012; as Chief Executive Officer of Ipsos Loyalty Worldwide, a division of Ipsos, a leading global provider of survey-based research, from May 2007 to May 2008 and as Global Chief Marketing and Client Service Officer of ACNielsen, a leading global provider of marketing research and information services, from January 2004 until May 2007. Mr. Markert has also served on the board of directors of True Value Company, a retailer-owned wholesaler of hardware and related products, since April 2013.
Mr. Markert was nominated in 2016 to serve as a director because of his experience as a senior executive of both publicly traded and privately held companies. He also brings geographic diversity to the Board. In addition, Mr. Markert brings significant expertise in traditional and digital marketing, social media, branding and market research to the Board.
Backgrounds of Continuing Class III Directors (Terms expiring in 2018)
Michael J. Fiorile
fiorilebw.jpg
Age: 62
STFC Director Since:  2015
Committees Served in 2016:  Nominating and Governance (Chair), and Risk (Chair)
Mr. Fiorile has also been a director of State Auto Mutual since 2003. Mr. Fiorile has served as Chairman and CEO of The Dispatch Printing Company, a privately owned, regional broadcast media and real estate company, since July 2016. Prior to taking his current position with The Dispatch Printing Company, Mr. Fiorile served as the company's Vice Chairman and CEO from September 2015 until July 2016; as its President and CEO from January 2013 until September 2015; as its President and COO from January 2008 until January 2013; and as its President from January 2005 until January 2008. He also serves as Chairman and CEO of the company’s subsidiary, Dispatch Broadcast Group, which includes television and radio stations. He has held several executive positions within Dispatch Broadcast Group since 1994.
Mr. Fiorile was nominated in 2015 to serve as a director because of his extensive experience as a senior executive of a privately held corporation, in particular his management experience with the operation of regulated entities. Mr. Fiorile also brings his extensive experience and familiarity with the State Auto Group.    



Michael E. LaRocco
laroccobw.jpg
Age:  60
STFC Director Since:  2015
Committee's Served in 2016:  Investment and Finance
Mr. LaRocco has been a director and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since May 2015 and Chairman of the Company since January 2016. Mr. LaRocco has also served as President and Chief Executive Officer of State Auto P&C, Milbank and SAOH, each a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, since May 2015, and as Chairman of State Auto P&C, Milbank and SAOH since January 2016. Mr. LaRocco has served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of State Auto Mutual since May 2015. Prior to joining the State Auto Group, Mr. LaRocco was with Business Insurance Direct, LLC ("BID"), an online seller of general liability and property insurance to small businesses, from December 2011 until April 2015. From January 2013 to July 2014, he was Chief Executive Officer of AssureStart Insurance Agency LLC ("AssureStart"), an online seller of general liability and property insurance to small businesses. BID had owned a minority interest in AssureStart until selling its interest to the majority owner of AssureStart in December 2014. Mr. LaRocco served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, a property and casualty insurance company, from March 2008 to July 2011. Previously, he was an executive for Safeco Insurance Companies, which are property and casualty insurance companies, from July 2001 to July 2006.
Mr. LaRocco was nominated in 2015 to serve as a director of the Company because of his extensive and valuable experience gained over his career in the property and casualty insurance industry, including underwriting, sales, marketing, general management and many years as a senior executive of property and casualty insurance companies. In addition, he brings valuable experience in strategic planning, leadership development, product development and online marketing.
Eileen A. Mallesch
malleschbw.jpg
Age:  61
STFC Director Since:  2010
Committees Served in 2016:  Audit (Chair), Compensation, and Independent
Ms. Mallesch served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company from November 2005 until her retirement in December 2009. She served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Genworth Life Insurance Company from April 2003 to November 2005. Prior to that, she was Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of General Electric Financial Employer Services Group from 2000 to 2003. Ms. Mallesch also serves as a director of the following publicly traded companies: Fifth Third Bancorp, Libbey Inc., and Bob Evans Farms, Inc.
Ms. Mallesch was last nominated in 2015 to serve as a director because of her extensive knowledge and experience in the areas of auditing, finance, enterprise risk management, taxation and mergers and acquisitions, particularly in the insurance industry. Ms. Mallesch qualifies as the "audit committee financial expert" under the SEC Rules. She also brings gender diversity to the Board and is a Certified Public Accountant.
Majority Voting Policy for Incumbent Directors
Our Board of Directors has adopted a majority voting policy for incumbent directors (the “Majority"Majority Voting Policy”Policy") which is reflected in our Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Majority Voting Policy provides that if a nominee for director who is an incumbent director does not receive the vote of at least the majority of the votes cast at any meeting for the election of directors at which a quorum is present, and no successor has been elected at such meeting, then that incumbent director will promptly tender his or her resignation to the Board of Directors. For purposes of the Majority Voting Policy, a majority of votes cast means that the number of Common Sharescommon shares voted “for”"for" a director’sdirector's election exceeds 50% of the number of votes cast with respect to that director’sdirector's election or, in the case where the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected, cast with respect to election of directors generally. Votes cast (i) include votes to withhold authority in each case, and (ii) exclude abstentions with respect to that director’sdirector's election or, in the case where the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected,


abstentions with respect to election of directors generally.

The Nominating and Governance Committee will make a recommendation to our Board of Directors as to whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation, or whether other action should be taken. Our Board of Directors will act on the tendered resignation, taking into account the Nominating and Governance Committee’sCommittee's recommendation, and publicly disclose (by a press release, a filing with the Securities and Exchange

CommissionSEC or other broadly disseminated means of communication) its decision regarding the tendered resignation and the rationale behind the decision within 90 days from the date of the certification of the election results. The Nominating and Governance Committee, in making its recommendation, and our Board of Directors, in making its decision, may each consider any factors or other information that the Nominating and Governance Committee or Board, as the case may be, considers appropriate and relevant. The director who tenders his or her resignation will not participate in the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee or the decision of our Board of Directors with respect to his or her resignation. If such incumbent director’s resignation is not accepted by our Board of Directors, such director will continue to serve until the next annual meeting and until his or her successor is duly elected, or his or her earlier resignation or removal. If a director’sdirector's resignation is accepted by our Board of Directors, then our Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, may fill any resulting vacancy pursuant to the provisions of our Code of Regulations.

Beneficial Ownership Information for Directors and Named Executive Officers

The following table sets forth information with respect to Common Shares beneficially owned by directors, director nominees and our “Named Executive Officers” or “NEOs” (those persons listed in the Summary Compensation Table on page 53 of this Proxy Statement) as of March 13, 2015:

Name

 Common
Shares
Beneficially
Owned(1)		  Stock
Options(2)		   Restricted
Share
Units(3)		   Total Beneficial
Ownership of
Common Shares
and RSUs		  Percent
of
Class		 

Robert E. Baker

  2,800    0     23,392     26,192    *  

David J. D’Antoni

  66,548    0     26,945     93,493    *  

Michael J. Fiorile

  0    0     0     0    *  

Michael E. LaRocco

  0    0     0     0    *  

Eileen A. Mallesch

  3,800    0     16,824     20,624    *  

Thomas E. Markert

  500    0     23,392     23,892    *  

David R. Meuse

  65,000    0     25,160     90,160    *  

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

  119,488(4)(5)   452,332     N/A     571,820    1.37% 

S. Elaine Roberts

  1,000    0     26,945     27,945    *  

Alexander B. Trevor

  500    0     25,160     25,660    *  

Paul S. Williams

  325    0     26,945     27,270    *  

Steven E. English

  17,641(4)(5)   122,657     N/A     140,298    *  

Jessica E. Buss

  7,737(4)(5)   42,371     N/A     50,108    *  

Clyde H. Fitch

  20,706(4)(5)   104,753     N/A     125,459    *  

James A. Yano

  14,333(4)(5)   72,900     N/A     87,233    *  

Directors and Officers as a group (22 persons)

  375,581(4)(5)   1,110,180       1,485,761(5)   3.51%(6) 

*

Less than one (1%) percent.

(1)

Except as indicated in the notes to this table, the persons named in the table and/or their spouses have sole voting and investment power with respect to all Common Shares shown as beneficially owned by them. For Mr. D’Antoni, includes 1,100 Common Shares over which he exercises voting rights through a power of attorney on behalf of his mother.

(2)

With respect to stock options, this table includes only stock options for Common Shares which are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of March 13, 2015.

(3)

Represents Restricted Share Units (“RSUs”) granted under the Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan. See “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors—Compensation of Outside Directors and Outside Director Compensation Table” for further information regarding this plan.

(4)

Includes restricted stock awards made to the Named Executive Officers and other officers on March 6, 2014. On that date, the Compensation Committee made the following restricted stock awards to the Named Executive Officers: Mr. Restrepo—8,826 Common Shares; Mr. English—2,572 Common Shares;

Ms. Buss—1,857 Common Shares; Mr. Fitch—1,783 Common Shares; Mr. Yano—1,783 Common Shares; and Officers as a group—24,570 Common Shares. The Common Shares are subject to a risk of forfeiture if, prior to March 6, 2017, the award recipient’s employment is terminated or he or she violates any provision of the restricted stock agreement applicable to these Common Shares. However, these Common Shares will not be forfeited, and will automatically vest, if, prior to March 6, 2017, the award recipient’s employment is terminated in connection with a change of control of the Company. These Common Shares are also subject to restrictions on transfer until March 6, 2017.

(5)

Includes restricted stock awards made to the Named Executive Officers and other officers on March 5, 2015. On that date, the Compensation Committee made the following restricted stock awards to the Named Executive Officers: Mr. Restrepo—7,924 Common Shares; Mr. English—2,471 Common Shares; Ms. Buss—2,192 Common Shares; Mr. Fitch—1,597 Common Shares; Mr. Yano—1,602 Common Shares; and Officers as a group—24,122 Common Shares. The Common Shares are subject to a risk of forfeiture if, prior to March 5, 2018, the award recipient’s employment is terminated or he or she violates any provision of the restricted stock agreement applicable to these Common Shares. However, these Common Shares will not be forfeited, and will automatically vest, if, prior to March 5, 2018, the award recipient’s employment is terminated in connection with a change of control of the Company. These Common Shares are also subject to restrictions on transfer until March 5, 2018.

(6)

Does not include RSUs.


PROPOSAL TWO: APPROVALTO ADOPT THE MATERIAL TERMS OF AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASETHE STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION 2017 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

Proposal

AtThe Board proposes that our shareholders approve the Annual Meeting, shareholders will be asked to consider and vote upon a proposal to approve an amendment toadoption of the State Auto Financial Corporation 1991 Employee Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan” or “Employee Stock Purchase Plan,” to increase by 250,000 the number"Plan"). On March 3, 2017, based upon the recommendation of the Company’s Common Shares reserved for issuance underCompensation Committee, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. The Board of Directors approvedunanimously adopted the amendment on March 6, 2015. At the Annual Meeting, unless otherwise indicated, proxies will be voted2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, subject to approve the amendment to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Shares Subject to the Plan

The total number of Common Shares made available for sale under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan was 3,400,000. Of that number, 166,861 remain available for sale as of March 13, 2015. Under the proposed amendment, an additional 250,000 Common Shares, without par value, would be available for sale under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which Common Shares may be authorized but unissued shares or issued shares reacquiredapproval by the Company and held as treasury shares.

Description of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan

The following discussion describes the important aspects of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. This discussionour shareholders. Set forth below is intended to be a summary of the material provisionsfeatures of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Because it2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, which summary is qualified in its entirety by the text of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, a summary, some details that may be important to you are not included. For this reason, the entire Employee Stock Purchase Plan, including the proposed amendment,copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to this Proxy Statement. You are encouraged to read the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, including the proposed amendment, in its entirety.

proxy statement as Appendix APurpose.

The purpose of the Employee Stock Purchase2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan is to provideadvance the interests of the Company and its shareholders and promote the long-term growth of the Company by providing participants with incentives to maximize shareholder value and to otherwise contribute to the success of the Company, thereby aligning the interests of participants with the interests of the Company’s shareholders and providing them additional incentives to continue in their employment or affiliation with the Company. The 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan serves these purposes by making equity-based, equity-related and cash-based awards ("Awards") available for grant to eligible participants in the form of:
Restricted common shares ("Restricted Stock");
Deferred stock units ("DSUs");
Awards denominated in cash that are subject to the attainment of performance goals ("Cash-Based Awards");
Awards similar to Restricted Stock Awards that are subject to the attainment of performance goals ("Performance Stock Awards");
Awards similar to DSU Awards that are subject to the attainment of performance goals ("Performance Unit Awards"); and
Equity-based or equity-related Awards not otherwise described by the terms and provisions of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan ("Other Stock-Based Awards").
If our shareholders approve the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan: (1) the Company will have 2,350,660 common shares available for future grant under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan which includes 2,350,660 common shares that remain available under the State Auto Financial Corporation 2009 Equity Plan, as amended (the "2009 Equity Plan"); (2) the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will replace the 2009 Equity Plan and the State Auto Financial Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Existing LTIP”); (3) shares will no longer be available for grant under the 2009 Equity Plan; and (4) awards outstanding under the 2009 Equity Plan and the Existing LTIP will remain in effect in accordance with the terms of the awards and the applicable plan. If the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan is not approved, common shares will remain available for grant under the 2009 Equity Plan.
As of the Record Date, there were: (1) 2,350,660 common shares remaining available for issuance under the 2009 Equity Plan; (2) 2,467,800 outstanding stock options, with a weighted average exercise price of $20.69 and a weighted average term to expiration of 4.1 years; (3) 88,895 outstanding restricted common shares; and (4) 41,986,179 total common shares outstanding.
Our average share usage rate, sometimes referred to as burn rate, over the three years ended December 31, 2016 (calculated as equity-based awards granted under our equity compensation plan for the relevant year, divided by average basic common shares outstanding for that year) is approximately 0.73%. The Company expects that the 2,350,660 million shares should enable us to continue to grant equity incentive compensation for the next 2.7 years or more. The potential dilution resulting from issuing all 2,350,660 million shares authorized under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, and taking into account outstanding awards, would be 10.8% on a fully-diluted basis.

Key Plan Features
The 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan includes provisions designed to protect the interests of our shareholders and reflect corporate governance best practices, including:
AWARDS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE/CLAWBACK. If the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the Company with any financial reporting requirement under applicable securities laws, any current or former executive officer must forfeit and repay to the Company any compensation awarded under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan to the extent specified in any clawback or similar policy that may be implemented by the Company from time to time.
NO EVERGREEN PROVISION. The 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan does not contain an annual "evergreen" provision. The 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan authorizes the issuance of a fixed number of shares and requires shareholder approval for the issuance of any additional shares, which provides our shareholders with direct input on our equity compensation programs.
NO LIBERAL CHANGE IN CONTROL DEFINITION; REQUIRES CONSUMMATION OF A CHANGE OF CONTROL EVENT. The change in control definition in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan is not a "liberal" definition. A change in control transaction must actually occur to trigger the change in control provisions in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
NO DIVIDEND EQUIVALENTS ON UNVESTED OR UNEARNED AWARDS. Any dividend equivalents paid under an Award will be subject to restrictions and a substantial risk of forfeiture to the same extent as the Award with respect to which such dividend equivalents are to be paid.
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code
Under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Compensation Committee may grant Cash-Based Awards, Performance Stock Awards and Performance Unit Awards in a manner that constitutes "qualified performance-based compensation" for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. Section 162(m) generally limits the deduction that we may take for certain remuneration paid in excess of $1,000,000 to any "covered employee" (as defined in Section 162(m)) in any one taxable year. Cash-Based Awards, Performance Stock Awards and Performance Unit Awards granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will not count against this $1,000,000 deduction limitation provided that (1) the lapse of restrictions on such Awards and the distribution of cash, common shares or other property pursuant to such Awards is contingent upon satisfying one or more of the performance criteria enumerated in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as established and certified by the Compensation Committee, and (2) such Awards otherwise satisfy the requirements for qualified performance-based compensation under Section 162(m). We are submitting the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, including the performance criteria set forth therein, to the shareholders for approval at the Annual Meeting to ensure that Cash-Based Awards, Performance Stock Awards and Performance Unit Awards granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will be deductible as qualified performance-based compensation.
Summary of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan
Administration
The Compensation Committee will administer the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan. The 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan requires the Compensation Committee to be comprised of at least two directors, each employeeof whom will be an "outside director" (within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder) and a "non-employee" director (within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the Exchange Act). The Compensation Committee currently consists of four directors, each of whom is an "outside director" and a "non-employee director."
In its capacity as plan administrator, the Compensation Committee will have full and exclusive power to interpret and apply the terms and provisions of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan and Awards made under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, and to adopt such rules, regulations and guidelines for implementing the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan as the Compensation Committee may deem necessary or proper. In carrying out its authority under the Plan, the Compensation Committee will have full and final authority and discretion, including the following rights, powers and authorities to: (1) determine the participants to whom and the times at which Awards will be made; (2) determine the number of common shares covered in each Award; (3) determine the terms, provisions and conditions of each Award; (4) prescribe, amend and rescind rules and regulations relating to administration of the

2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan; and (5) make all other determinations and take all other actions deemed necessary, appropriate or advisable for the proper administration of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
All determinations and decisions made by the Compensation Committee pursuant to the provisions of the Plan and all related orders and resolutions of the Compensation Committee will be final, conclusive and binding on all parties.
With respect to each Award granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, we will enter into a written or electronic award agreement with the participant which describes the terms and conditions of the Award, including the terms and conditions applicable to the Award following the participant’s termination of employment.
Eligibility
The persons who are eligible to receive Awards under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan include (1) employees of the Company and its affiliates who are executive, administrative, professional or technical personnel who, in the opinion of the Compensation Committee, have responsibilities affecting the management, development or financial success of the Company or one or more of its parent or subsidiaries with an opportunityaffiliates and (2) persons who have agreed to acquire or increase a proprietary interest in the Company by enabling such employees to purchase Common Shares through payroll deductions. Because the employee stock purchase feature of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan is intended to qualify as an employee stock purchase plan described in Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), eligible employees may purchase Common Shares at a discount to their fair market value, as described below.

Eligibility

Allbecome employees of the Company and its affiliates and are expected to become such within three months of the date of the Award (other than Performance Stock Awards or its parent or subsidiary corporations arePerformance Unit Awards). As of March 3, 2017, there were 132 employees of the Company who would be eligible to participate in the Employee Stock Purchase2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan. As

Available Common Shares
Subject to the adjustments discussed below, the aggregate number of March 13, 2015, there were 579 employees participatingcommon shares available for the grant of Awards under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will be 2,350,660. The common shares that may be delivered under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan may consist of (1) treasury shares and (2) authorized and unissued common shares.
The following common shares may be awarded under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan and do not count against the 2,350,660 share limit:
Common shares allocable to the portion of an Award granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan that terminates or expires, is forfeited or cancelled, for any reason, or is settled in cash in lieu of common shares or in a manner such that all or some of the common shares covered by the Award are not issued or are exchanged for Awards that do not involve common shares;
Common shares subject to outstanding awards under the 2009 Equity Plan as of the effective date of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan that, on or after such effective date, cease to be subject to such awards other than by reason of exercise or settlement of the awards to the extent they are exercised for or settled in common shares;
Common shares withheld from the payment of an Award to satisfy tax obligations with respect to the Award; and
Common shares granted through the assumption of, or in substitution for, outstanding awards granted by a company to individuals who become eligible participants in the Employee Stock Purchase2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan which represents approximately 25%as the result of the Company’s work force.

In addition to the employees described in the preceding paragraph, eligible employees also include an individual who is employed by an entity acquired bya merger, consolidation, acquisition or similar corporate transaction involving such company and the Company or any of its parent or a subsidiary corporation in anticipation of and conditioned on, becoming an employeeaffiliates.

During any fiscal year of the Company, the Compensation Committee may not grant any employee:
Performance Stock Awards covering more than 250,000 common shares;
Performance Unit Awards covering more than 250,000 common shares;
Performance Stock Awards or its parent or a subsidiary corporation asPerformance Unit Awards settled in cash valued in excess of the commencement datenumber of an applicable subscription period. Such designation as an eligible employee is solely for the purpose of the individual’s eligibility to enroll in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan during an applicable enrollment period prior to the applicable subscription period. In the event an individual is not an employee of the Company or its parent or a subsidiary corporation as of the commencement of a subscription period, the individual shall not be an eligible employee or become a participant in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Stock Purchases; Purchase Price; Reinvestment of Cash Dividends

Employees who desire to participate in the Employee Stock Purchase Plan may do soawards multiplied by making an election to participate during one of two annual enrollment periods. Currently, the enrollment periods are June 1 through June 14 and December 1 through December 14.

Participating employees may elect to contribute, by payroll deduction, from one percent to six percent of their base pay toward the purchase of Common Shares. Amounts accumulated in the plan account of each participating employee through the last pay period during a subscription period will be credited to the purchase of Common Shares from the Company. Unless withdrawn by the participant, Common Shares purchased under the plan will be held for the participant by the Employee Stock Purchase Plan’s agent, currently Fidelity National Bank. For subscription periods on or after January 1, 2010, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan requires an active employee participant to hold Common Shares in the participant’s account for at least one year from the date of purchase or 18 months from the last trading day preceding the subscription period.

The purchase price for Common Shares purchased under the plan is the lesser of 85% of the fair market value of the Common SharesCompany's common shares on the last trading day before the first day of each subscription periodapplicable payment or on the last trading day before the last day of such subscription period.

Currently, the two annual subscription periods are January 1 through June 30 and July 1 through December 31.

At the electionsettlement date of the participant,Award multiplied by 5.0; or

Cash-Based Awards of more than $5 million.
If and to the extent necessary or appropriate to reflect any dividends receivedstock dividend, extraordinary dividend, stock split or share combination or any recapitalization, merger, consolidation, exchange of shares, spin-off, liquidation or dissolution of the Company or other similar transaction affecting our common shares, the Compensation Committee will adjust the number of common shares available for issuance under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, any other limit applicable under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan with respect to Common Shares heldthe number of Awards that may be granted thereunder, and the number, class and exercise price (if applicable) or base

price (if applicable) of any outstanding Award, and/or make such substitution, revision or other provisions or take such other actions with respect to any outstanding Award or the holder or holders thereof, in each case as it determines to be equitable.
On March 3, 2017, the closing price of our common shares on the NASDAQ Global Select Market was $27.20.
Types of Awards
Restricted Stock
The Compensation Committee may grant shares of Restricted Stock at any time during the term of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan in such number and upon such terms as it determines. The Compensation Committee will determine the terms, conditions and any vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions applicable to each Restricted Stock Award, all of which will be reflected in the participant’s account will either be automatically reinvestedapplicable Award agreement. During the period that the shares of Restricted Stock remain subject to forfeiture, we may retain the certificates representing shares of Restricted Stock and, unless otherwise provided in the participant’s accountapplicable Award agreement, a participant will generally be entitled to exercise full voting rights and receive all dividends paid with respect to the shares of Restricted Stock (except that receipt of any dividends will be subject to the same terms, conditions and restrictions as apply to the shares of Restricted Stock).
Deferred Stock Unit Awards
The Compensation Committee may grant DSUs at any time during the term of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan in such number and upon such terms as it determines. The value of any DSU will equal the fair market value of a common share. The Compensation Committee will determine the terms, conditions and any vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions applicable to each DSU Award, all of which will be reflected in the applicable Award agreement. The award agreement for a DSU may also specify that the holder of the DSU Award will be entitled to the payment of dividend equivalents under the Award. Any dividend equivalents paid under a DSU Award will be subject to the same vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions as the Award with respect to which such dividend equivalents are to be paid. A DSU may be settled in our common shares, cash or a combination thereof, as specified in the applicable Award agreement.
Performance Awards
The Compensation Committee may grant Cash-Based Awards, Performance Stock Awards and Performance Unit Awards at any time during the term of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan in such number and upon such terms as it determines. The Compensation Committee will determine the terms, conditions and any vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions applicable to each Cash-Based Award, Performance Stock Award and Performance Unit Award, all of which will be reflected in the applicable Award agreement. Such restrictions will be based upon the attainment of performance goals determined by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee will base the performance goals on one or more of the following performance criteria enumerated in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan: earnings, return on capital, revenue, premiums, net income, earnings per share, combined ratio, loss ratio, expense ratio, assets, equity, cash flows, stock price, total shareholders' return, policies in force or any other performance goal approved by the shareholders of the Company in accordance with Section 162(m) of the Code.
As determined by the Compensation Committee, the selected performance criteria may relate to the individual participant, the Company, one or more business units, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, regions, segments, products or functions of the Company or its affiliates, or the Company as a whole, and may be measured on a per share, per capita, per unit, per employee, per customer or other objective basis, on a pre-tax or after-tax basis or on an absolute basis or in relative terms (including, but not limited to, the passage of time and/or against other companies, financial metrics and/or an index).
With respect to participants who are not covered employees and who, in the Compensation Committee's judgment, are not likely to be covered employees at any time during the applicable performance period or during any period in which Cash-Based Award, Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award may be paid following a performance period, the performance objectives established for the performance period may consist of any objective or subjective corporate-wide or subsidiary, division, operating unit or individual measures, whether or not listed in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, and such performance objectives will be subject to such other special rules and conditions as the Compensation Committee may establish at any time.
To the extent permitted by Section 162(m) of the Code, the Compensation Committee may provide that amounts relating to or arising from one or more of the following may be included or excluded from the performance goals on a non-discretionary basis: (1) unusual, infrequently occurring or non-recurring events affecting the Company and/or its affiliates; (2) changes in applicable tax laws; (3) changes in accounting principles; (4) changes related to restructured or discontinued operations; (5) restatement of prior financial results; and (6) any other unusual, infrequently occurring or non-recurring gain or loss including those described in the Financial Accounting Standards Board's authoritative guidance, footnotes to the Company's financial statements, in management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations appearing in the Company's reports on

Form 10-K, 10-Q or 8-K for the applicable year and/or appearing in a press release reporting the Company's earnings for any fiscal period. Under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Compensation Committee has the authority to exercise negative discretion and reduce (but not increase with respect to holders of Awards who are Covered Employees or who, in the Compensation Committee's judgment, are likely to be Covered Employees) the amount of a Cash-Based Award, Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award actually paid to a participant.
For each Cash-Based Award, Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award granted to a covered employee, the participant in a quarterly cash distribution.

Federal Income Tax Information

The employee stock purchase featureCompensation Committee will establish the applicable performance goals while the outcome of the Employee Stock Purchase Planapplicable performance goals is intendedsubstantially uncertain, but in any event prior to qualify as an employee stock purchase plan described in Section 423the earlier to occur of (1) 90 days after the commencement of the Code. As such, participants will recognize no income for federal income tax purposes uponperiod of service to which the grantperformance goal relates or exercise(2) the lapse of 25 percent of the right to purchase Common Shares. The compensation deducted to purchase Common Shares under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan duringperiod of service. Each performance goal must be objective such that a subscription period, however, will be includable in the participant’s income.

If a participant disposes of Common Shares purchased under the employee stock purchase featurethird party having knowledge of the Employeerelevant facts could determine whether the goal is met.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, each holder of a Performance Stock Purchase Plan within two years afterAward will have all the last trading day precedingrights of a shareholder with respect to the subscriptioncommon shares issued to the holder pursuant to the Award during any period in which such Common Shares were purchased (the “Grant Date”issued common shares are subject to forfeiture and restrictions on transfer, including the right to vote such shares; provided, however, that the holder shall not receive payment of dividends until and only to the extent that the performance goals applicable to such Award are satisfied. An award agreement for a Performance Unit Award may specify that the holder of such Award will be entitled to the payment of dividend equivalents under the Award; provided, however, that the holder will not receive payment of such dividend equivalents until and only to the extent that the performance goals applicable to such Award are satisfied. A Performance Unit Award may be settled in our common shares, cash or a combination thereof, as specified in the applicable Award agreement.
Other Stock-Based Awards
The Compensation Committee may grant Other Stock-Based Awards at any time during the term of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan in such number and upon such terms as it determines. The Compensation Committee will determine the terms, conditions and any vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions applicable to each Other Stock-Based Award, all of which will be reflected in the applicable Award agreement. Other Stock-Based Awards may be settled in our common shares, cash or a combination thereof, as specified in the applicable Award agreement.
Termination of Employment or Service
The Compensation Committee will determine the extent to which each Award granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will vest and the extent to which a participant will have the right to settle the Award in connection with a participant’s termination of employment or service. Such provisions, which will be reflected in the applicable Award agreement, need not be uniform among all Awards and may reflect distinctions based on the reasons for termination.
Change in Control
If a Change in Control (as defined in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan) occurs while unvested Awards remain outstanding under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, then, except as otherwise provided in an Award agreement or other agreement between the holder of the Award and the Company, the Compensation Committee will effect one or more of the following alternatives (which may vary among Awards and among individual holders of Awards granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan):
1.With respect to Awards subject to performance goals, except as otherwise determined by the Compensation Committee, all incomplete performance periods in respect of such Award in effect on the date the Change in Control occurs shall end on the date of such change and the Compensation Committee shall (a) determine the extent to which performance goals with respect to each such performance period have been met based upon such audited or unaudited financial information then available as it deems relevant and (b) cause to be paid to the participant pro-rated Awards (based on each completed day of the performance period prior to the Change in Control) based upon the Compensation Committee’s determination of the degree of attainment of such performance goals or, if not determinable, assuming that the applicable target levels of performance have been attained (or on such other basis as the Compensation Committee determines to be appropriate); provided that in no event shall a participant become entitled to a payout in excess of the target level payout with respect to a performance goal for which the Compensation Committee has not determined the actual level of achievement;
2.In accordance with the terms of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, provide for the assumption or substitution of some or all of the outstanding Awards by a party to the Change in Control transaction that is employing, or affiliated or associated with, the holder of the Awards in the same or a substantially similar manner as the Company prior to the Change in Control;

3.Adjust the number and class or series of shares covered by an Award so that the Award will cover the number and class or series of shares or other securities or property (including, without limitation, cash) the holder of the Award would have been entitled to in connection with the Change in Control if, immediately prior to the Change in Control, the holder of the Award had been the holder of record of the number of shares then covered by the Award; or
4.Make such adjustments to outstanding Awards as the Compensation Committee deems appropriate to reflect such Change in Control.
Transferability
Except as otherwise provided in the applicable Award agreement or in a domestic relations court order, (1) a participant may not transfer, sell, assign, pledge, hypothecate, encumber or otherwise dispose of an Award, except by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and (2) during a participant’s lifetime, only the participant or his or her guardian or legal representative may exercise an Award.
Forfeiture
If a Forfeiture Determination (as defined in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan) is made by the Compensation Committee or a court of competent jurisdiction, as applicable, the Company may determine, in accordance with the Forfeiture Determination, that all or a portion of the participant's rights to an Award (including, but not limited to, common shares, cash proceeds and/or dividends) must be forfeited. The Compensation Committee may specify in an Award agreement that the rights, payments and benefits of an Award granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will be subject to reduction, cancellation, forfeiture or recoupment upon the occurrence of certain specified events, in addition to any otherwise applicable vesting or performance conditions of an Award.
No Rights as a Shareholder
Except as otherwise provided in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan or in an applicable Award agreement, a participant will not have any rights as a shareholder with respect to our common shares covered by an Award unless and until the participant becomes the record holder of such common shares.
Clawback
If the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to its material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under applicable securities laws, the current or former holder who was a current or former executive officer of the Company or an affiliate must forfeit and repay to the Company any compensation awarded under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan to the extent specified in any clawback or similar policy that may be implemented by the Company from time to time (including our existing clawback policy (as described below in "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Clawback Policy") and such policies that may be implemented after the date an Award is granted, pursuant to the listing standards of any national securities exchange or association on which the Company’s securities are listed or as is otherwise required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act or other applicable law) or other agreement or arrangement with a holder.
Effective Date and Term
The 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will become effective upon its approval by the shareholders and, unless earlier terminated, will continue indefinitely until terminated in accordance with its terms.
Amendment or Termination
The Board may amend or terminate the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan at any time, except that no amendment or termination may be made without shareholder approval if such approval is required by applicable law or stock exchange rules.
U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences
The following is a brief summary of the general U.S. federal income tax consequences relating to participation in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan. This summary is based on U.S. federal tax laws and Treasury Regulations in effect on the date of this proxy statement and does not purport to be a complete description of the U.S. federal income tax laws. In addition, this summary does not constitute tax advice or describe federal employment, state, local or foreign tax consequences. Each participant should consult with his or her tax advisor concerning the U.S. federal income tax and other tax consequences of participating in the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan.

Restricted Stock
Unless a participant makes an election under Section 83(b) of the Code (a "Section 83(b) Election"), the participant must include ingenerally will not recognize taxable income when Restricted Stock is granted, and the Company will not receive a deduction at that time. Instead, a participant will recognize ordinary income as compensation, an amountwhen the Restricted Stock vests (i.e., when the underlying common shares are freely transferable or not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture) equal to the excess of the fair market value of the Common Shares oncommon shares that the purchase date overparticipant receives when the purchase priceterms, conditions and restrictions have been met, less any consideration paid for such Shares under the EmployeeRestricted Stock, Purchase Plan. The employer companyand the Company generally will be allowedentitled to a deduction in an amount equal to the amount included inincome that the participant’s income as compensation. participant recognizes.
If the amount a participant does not disposereceives upon disposition of the Common Shares purchased under the employee stock purchase feature of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan until after the expiration of the two-year holding period described above or if the participant dies while holding the Common Shares acquired under the employee stock purchase feature of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the participant must include in income, as compensation, in the taxable year in which disposition or death occurs, an amount equal to the lesser of (i) the excess ofthese common shares is greater than the fair market value of the Common Shares atcommon shares when the timeRestricted Stock vested, the excess will be treated as a long-term or short-term capital gain, depending on whether the participant held the common shares for more than one year after the Restricted Stock vested. Conversely, if the amount the participant receives upon disposition of their disposition or death over the purchase price paid for the Common Shares under the plan, or (ii) 15% ofthese common shares is less than the fair market value of the Common Shares oncommon shares when the Grant Date. The basis ofRestricted Stock vested, the participant in the Common Shares purchased under the employee stock purchase feature of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan will equal the amount paid for the Common Shares plus the amount, if any, included in the participant’s income as compensation. Any compensation resulting from the disposition of the Common Shares will be includable in the income of the participant in the participant’s taxable year in which the disposition of the Common Shares occurs. The participant’s holding period for the Common Shares purchased under the employee stock purchase feature of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan will commence on the Grant

Date. Any gain in excess of the basisdifference will be treated as a long-term or short-term capital gain ifloss, depending on whether the participant’s holding periodparticipant held the common shares for the Common Shares is more than one year.

Participants must include inyear after the Restricted Stock vested.

If a participant makes a Section 83(b) Election, the participant will recognize ordinary income any dividends received on the Common Sharesgrant date equal to the fair market value of the common shares subject to the Restricted Stock Award on the grant date, and the Company will be entitled to a deduction equal to the income that the participant recognizes at that time.
However, the participant will not recognize income when (and if) the Restricted Stock vests. If a participant who has made a Section 83(b) Election earns the common shares subject to a Restricted Stock Award, any appreciation between the grant date and the date the participant disposes of the common shares will be treated as a long-term or short-term capital gain, depending on whether the participant held the common shares for more than one year after the grant date. Conversely, if the amount the participant receives upon disposition of the common shares is less than the fair market value of the common shares on the grant date, the difference will be treated as a long-term or short-term capital loss, depending on whether the participant held the common shares for more than one year after the grant date. Also, if a participant forfeits his or her Restricted Stock, the participant cannot take a tax deduction in connection with the forfeiture of the Restricted Stock subject to a Section 83(b) Election.
Deferred Stock Unit Awards
The grant of a DSU Award under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan generally will not result in the recognition of any U.S. federal taxable income by the agentrecipient or a deduction for the Company at the time of grant. At the time a DSU Award vests, the recipient will recognize ordinary income and the Company will be entitled to a corresponding deduction. Generally, the measure of the income and deduction will be the fair market value of our common shares at the time the DSU is settled.
Cash-Based Awards
A participant will not recognize ordinary income at the time a Cash-Based Award is granted, and the Company will not be entitled to a deduction at that time. In general, a participant will recognize ordinary income when the Cash-Based Award is settled equal to the amount of the cash received, and the Company will be entitled to a corresponding deduction.
Performance Stock and Performance Unit Awards
Performance Stock Awards granted under the Employee2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan generally have the same tax consequences as Restricted Stock PurchaseAwards as discussed above (except that the compensation deduction limitation under Section 162(m) of the Code generally will not apply). A recipient of a Performance Unit Award under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan regardlessgenerally will not realize U.S. federal taxable income at the time of whether such dividendsgrant of the Award, and the Company will not be entitled to a deduction at that time with respect to the Award. When the performance goals applicable to the Performance Unit Award are reinvested inattained and amounts are due under the participant’s account Award, the holder of the Award will be treated as receiving compensation taxable as ordinary income, and the Company will be entitled to a corresponding deduction.
Other Stock-Based Awards
Generally, a participant will not recognize taxable income when an Other Stock-Based Award is granted, and the Company will not receive a deduction at that time. However, upon the settlement of an Other Stock-Based Award, the participant will recognize ordinary income equal to the cash and/or paidfair market value of the common shares that the participant receives. the Company generally will be entitled to a deduction equal to the income that the participant recognizes.
If the participant receives common shares upon the settlement of an Other Stock-Based Award and the amount the participant receives upon disposition of the common shares acquired upon the settlement of the Other Stock-Based Award is greater than the fair market value of the common shares when they were issued to the participant, inthe excess will be treated as a cash distribution.long-term or short-

term capital gain, depending on whether the participant held the common shares for more than one year after they were issued. Conversely, if the amount the participant receives upon disposition of the common shares is less than the value of the common shares when they were issued, the difference will be treated as a long-term or short-term capital loss, depending on whether the participant held the common shares for more than one year after they were issued.
Section 409A
Section 409A of the Code imposes certain restrictions on amounts deferred under non-qualified deferred compensation plans and a 20% additional tax on amounts that are subject to, but do not comply with, Section 409A. Section 409A includes a broad definition of non-qualified deferred compensation plans, which includes certain types of equity incentive compensation. The participant’s basisCompany intends for the Awards granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan to comply with or be exempt from the requirements of Section 409A and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.
New Plan Benefits
All Awards granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan will be at the discretion of the Compensation Committee and, in the Common Shares purchasedcase of Cash-Based Awards, Performance Stock Awards and Performance Unit Awards, dependent upon the Company’s future performance. As a result, with such dividendsthe exception of the Conditional Awards (as defined below), the specific number and terms of Awards that (1) will equalbe granted to participants or (2) would have been granted to participants during the amount paid for such Common Shares2016 fiscal year had the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan been in place, are not determinable.
On March 3, 2017, as part of our regular annual grant cycle, the Compensation Committee awarded performance units (the "Conditional Units") and performance award units (the "Conditional PAUs") under the participant’s holding period will commence2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan to our NEOs and certain other employees contingent on shareholder approval of this Proposal Two (collectively, the day such Common Shares are purchased.

2014 Information Pertaining to Named Executive Officers and Other Groups

The“Conditional Awards”). In accordance with SEC Rules, the following table sets forth with respectthe target number of Conditional Awards that were granted under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan on March 3, 2017, to each of our NEOs and the persons named in the Summary Compensation Tablegroups identified below:

Name of Individual or Identity of Group and Position
Target Number of Conditional Units(1)
Target Number of Conditional PAUs(1)
Michael E. LaRocco28,056763,125
     Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer  
Steven E. English7,237196,849
     Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  
Jessica E. Clark6,446175,353
     Senior Vice President, Director of Commercial and Specialty Lines  
Kim B. Garland6,446175,346
     Senior Vice President, Director of Standard Lines  
Paul M. Stachura4,747129,142
     Senior Vice President, Chief CARE Officer  
All current executive officers, as a group (13 persons)78,7612,142,462
All current directors who are not executive officers, as a group (8 directors)——
All employees, including all current officers who are not executive officers, as a group92,8002,575,946
   
(1) The Conditional Awards will vest and be earned, if at all, after the completion of a three-year performance period from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019, based on our premium growth and combined ratio during the performance period. The value of the Conditional Units and Conditional PAUs that will vest and be earned by each grantee may be increased by up to 500% (from the target value) if the Company achieves the maximum performance levels for the performance measures and be decreased to zero if the Company fails to meet the minimum performance levels. The same minimum, target and maximum performance levels apply to each grantee. Additionally, the grantee must remain employed by us through the end of the performance period for the Conditional Awards to vest and be earned, except in the case of termination due to death, disability or retirement or through a reduction in force. The vested Conditional Units will be settled in whole common shares and the vested Conditional PAUs will be settled in cash. The Conditional Awards have no dividend or voting rights. Any portion of the Conditional Awards that does not vest due to inadequate performance or termination of employment will be forfeited.
For information regarding our common shares to be issued and certain groups of employees, certain information about Common Shares purchased under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan during 2014:

Name

 Number of
Common
Shares
Purchased		  Average
Per Share
Purchase
Price ($)(1)		  Net Value of
Common
Shares
Realized ($)(2)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

Chairman, President and

Chief Executive Officer

  0    0    0  

Steven E. English

Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

  1,136.041    18.569    5,124.165  

Jessica E. Buss

Senior Vice President

  1,004.154    18.569    4,283.146  

Clyde H. Fitch, Jr.

Senior Vice President

  1,122.207    18.569    4,817.224  

James A. Yano

Senior Vice President

  770.994    18.569    3,288.441  

All executive officers as a group (12 persons)

  6,724.792    18.569    28,974.09    

All participants, other than executive officers, as a group (579 persons)

  79,679.586    18.569    339,461.87    

(1)

Represents 85% of the average fair market value of the Common Shares on both purchase dates in 2014.

(2)

Represents the net value of the Common Shares on the purchase date determined by subtracting the net purchase price from the fair market value of the Common Shares on the purchase date of each subscription period that ended in 2014 and multiplying that amount by the number of shares purchased for each subscription period.

Reasons for Shareholder Approval

The Company’s shareholders are being asked to approve the amendment to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan because shareholder approval is required to make additional Common Shares available for saleissuance under our existing equity compensation plans, see the terms"Equity Compensation Plan Information and Burn Rate" section of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

The favorable vote of a majority of the outstanding Common Shares voted on such Proposal is required to approve the amendment to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. The effect of an abstention is the same as a vote against this proposal. Proposal Two is considered a non-routine matter, so if you do not instruct your broker as to how you want your Common Shares voted on this Proposal, no vote will be cast on your behalf.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN.Proxy Statement.


Board Recommendation
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" THE ADOPTION OF THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION 2017 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN.


PROPOSAL THREE: RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF

ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS THE COMPANY'S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee of the Company’sCompany's Board of Directors has selected Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’sCompany's independent registered public accounting firm for 2015.2017. Ernst & Young LLP has served as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm since 1994.
Reasons for Shareholder Approval; Board Recommendation
The Audit Committee and the Board of Directors believe that the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP for 2017 is appropriate because of the firm's reputation, qualifications and experience. Although not required, the Board of Directors is submitting the selection of Ernst & Young LLP to the Company’sCompany's shareholders for ratification. Ernst & Young LLP has servedratification as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm since 1994. The Audit Committee and the Boarda matter of Directors believe that the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP for 2015 is appropriate because of the firm’s reputation, qualifications and experience.

good corporate practice.

The favorable vote of a majority of the outstanding Common Shares that are voted on this Proposalcommon shares present at the Annual Meeting is required to approve the ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” RATIFICATION OF THE SELECTION OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS THE COMPANY’S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR 2015.

Abstentions on this Proposal will have the same effect as a vote against it. Proposal Three is considered a routine matter on which a broker or other nominee has discretionary authority to vote. Accordingly, brokers, banks and other similar institutions may vote unrestricted shares of their clients on this Proposal.

The Audit Committee will reconsider the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP if its selection is not ratified by the Company’sCompany's shareholders. Even if the selection of Ernst & Young LLP is ratified by shareholders, the Audit Committee, in its discretion, could decide to terminate the engagement of Ernst & Young LLP and to engage another independent registered public accounting firm if the Audit Committee determines such action to be necessary or desirable.

in the best interests of the Company and our shareholders.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" RATIFICATION OF THE SELECTION OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS THE COMPANY'S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR 2017.


PROPOSAL FOUR: ADVISORY VOTE ON COMPENSATION OF

NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AS DISCLOSED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT

We are asking shareholders to approve, on a non-binding and advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officersCompany's Named Executive Officers as disclosed in this Proxy Statement.

STFC's compensation policies and practices reward performance, support our business strategies and align our Named Executive Officers' interests with the long-term interests of our shareholders. The Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee believe that the policies and practices articulated in the “Compensation"Compensation Discussion and Analysis”Analysis" section of this Proxy Statement are effective in achieving the objectives of our executive compensation program. The Board of Directors urges you to read the “Compensation"Compensation Discussion and Analysis,”Analysis" section of this Proxy Statement, which describes in more detail how our executive compensation policies and practices operate and are designed to achieve the objectives of our executive compensation programs, as well as the tables, notes and narrative disclosure relating to the compensation of the named executive officers, set forth on pages 26 through 70 of this Proxy Statement,Named Executive Officers, which provide detailed information on the compensation of our named executive officers.

Named Executive Officers.

We are asking shareholders to approve the following advisory resolution at the Annual Meeting:

RESOLVED, that the shareholders of the Company approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officersNamed Executive Officers as disclosed in the Proxy Statement for the Company’s 2015Company's 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders under the “Compensation"Compensation Discussion and Analysis”Analysis" section and the tables, notes and narrative disclosure relating to the compensation of the named executive officersNamed Executive Officers of the Company.

Reasons for Shareholder Approval; Board Recommendation
This advisory vote on executive compensation is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officersNamed Executive Officers and the policies and practices described in this Proxy Statement. This advisory vote on executive compensation is advisory and, therefore, is not binding on the Company, the Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee. However, the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee will review and consider the voting results when making future decisions regarding our executive compensation program.

The favorable vote of a majority of the outstanding common shares voted on this advisory Proposal is required to approve the non-binding vote. Abstentions on the Proposal will have the same effect as not voting or expressing a preference, as the case may be. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of this Proposal.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.


PROPOSAL FIVE: ADVISORY VOTE ON THE BOARDFREQUENCY OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” APPROVAL OF THECONDUCTING FUTURE ADVISORY VOTES ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION OF THE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.
We are asking shareholders to vote on whether future advisory votes on executive compensation of the nature reflected in Proposal Five should be conducted every year, every two years or every three years.
After careful consideration, the Board of Directors has determined that conducting an advisory vote on executive compensation every year is the most appropriate policy for the Company at this time. We believe that an annual advisory vote on executive compensation is consistent with our practice of seeking input and engaging in dialogue with our shareholders on corporate governance matters (including our practice of annually providing shareholders the opportunity to ratify the Audit Committee's selection of our independent registered public accounting firm). When voting on the following resolution, shareholders may select their preferred voting frequency by specifying one of the four options for this Proposal set forth on the proxy card: one year, two years, three years or abstain from voting:
RESOLVED, that the option of once every year, two years or three years that receives the highest number of votes cast for this resolution will be determined to be the preferred frequency with which the Company is to hold a shareholder vote to approve the compensation of its Named Executive Officers, as disclosed in the Proxy Statement for its Annual Meeting of Shareholders under the

"Compensation Discussion and Analysis" section and the tables, notes and narrative disclosure related to the compensation of the Named Executive Officers of the Company.

Reasons for Shareholder Approval; Board Recommendation
Shareholders are not voting to approve or disprove the Board of Directors' recommendation. The option of one year, two years or three years that receive the highest number of votes cast by shareholders will be the shareholder-approved frequency selection for the advisory vote on executive compensation. This vote on the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation is advisory and, therefore, is not binding on the Company or the Board of Directors. Consequently, the Board of Directors may decide that it is in the best interest of our shareholders and the Company to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation more or less frequently than the option that receives the most votes cast by our shareholders. However, the Board of Directors values the opinions expressed by shareholders in their vote on this Proposal and will consider the outcome of the vote when making a determination as to the frequency of advisory votes on executive compensation.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" CONDUCTING FUTURE ADVISORY VOTES ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION EVERY YEAR.


CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Relationship with State Auto Mutual and Changes in Board Structure

Relationship with State Auto Mutual and Changes in Board Structure
Our parent is State Auto Mutual, a mutual insurance company organized in 1921. State Auto Mutual currently owns approximately 62.6%61.8% of the outstanding Common Shares.common shares of STFC. In 1990, State Auto Mutual engaged in a corporate restructuring which, among other things, resulted in the formation of STFC as a wholly owned subsidiary of State Auto Mutual. In 1991, State Auto Mutual sold approximately 30% of its ownership interest in STFC in a public stock offering. While State Auto Mutual’sMutual's ownership interest in STFC has declined since STFC’sSTFC's initial public offering, the State Auto Mutual Board has made public its determination that it is in the best interest of State Auto Mutual to maintain a 60% or greatermajority ownership interest in STFC.

We qualify as a “controlled company”"controlled company" under the Nasdaq listing rules because State Auto Mutual owns more than a majority of the voting power for the election of our directors. A controlled company is exempt from a number of Nasdaq corporate governance requirements. Notwithstanding this qualification, our corporate governance operates in a manner consistent with that of a non-controlled company. For example, a majority of the members of our Board are independent directors as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules. See “—below "Directors—Director Independence.” In addition, the members of both our Compensation and Nominating and Governance Committees are composed entirely of independent directors as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules. See “—Board Meetings and Board Committee Meetings.”

"

We and our subsidiaries operate and manage our businesses in conjunction with State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates under various management and cost sharing agreements under the leadership and direction of the same senior management team. In addition, our insurance subsidiaries participate in a pooling arrangement with State Auto Mutual and certain of its insurance subsidiaries and affiliates. This pooling arrangement covers all of the property and casualty insurance written by our insurance subsidiaries. See “Relatedbelow "Related Person Transactions—Transactions Involving State Auto Mutual”Mutual" for additional information concerning these intercompany agreements and arrangements.

In 2014, the Nominating and Governance Committee of our Board and the Nominating and Governance Committee of the State Auto Mutual Board (collectively, the “N"N&G Committees”Committees") began a process to consider a potential restructuring of the STFC and State Auto Mutual Boards (collectively, the “Boards”"Boards"). In broad terms, the N&G Committees considered whether or not it was in the best interest of their respective constituencies to create more overlapping, common directors on the STFC and State Auto Mutual Boards and their committees, which would result in board and committee structures that might be more similar to what they looked like when STFC was initially formed and went public. In addition, the N&G Committees considered the size of each boardBoard and the total number of directors comprising both boards.Boards. The N&G Committees also considered the current skill sets of directors and whether such skill sets would remain appropriate after anticipating the retirement of certain directors. The N&G Committees identified various reasons in support of their belief that a restructuring would be in the best interest of their respective constituencies, includedincluding the following—continuing to improve the communications and engagement between boards and committees, improving knowledge transfer and sharing, cost savings through eliminated positions, continuing to improve communications and efficiencies between directors and management, and improving skill sets and expertise.

As a result of this process, each of the N&G Committees recommended to its respective Board, and each Board approved, a structure in which each board would have two additional common directors, i.e., two directors (other than our President and Chief Executive Officer) that serve on both the STFC and State Auto Mutual Boards. In that regard, at the State Auto Mutual 2015 annual meeting of members, Robert E. Baker, currentlyat that time only a director of STFC, was elected as a director of State Auto Mutual. Likewise, Michael J. Fiorile, currentlyat that time only a director of State Auto Mutual, has been nominated for electionwas elected as a Class III director of the Company at the Annual Meeting.

2015 annual meeting of STFC shareholders.

Director Independence

Board Responsibility
The Nominating and Governance Committee has affirmatively determined that seven of our eight incumbent directors, namely Robert E. Baker, David J. D’Antoni, Eileen A. Mallesch, Thomas E. Markert, David R. Meuse, S. Elaine Roberts and Alexander B. Trevor, and director nominee Michael J. Fiorile, are “independent” as determined by the Nasdaq listing rules. The Nominating and Governance Committee made this determination based upon its review of information included in director questionnaires provided by eachprimary responsibility of the incumbent directorsBoard of Directors is to foster the long-term success of the Company. In fulfilling this role, each director must exercise his or her best business judgment. The Board has responsibility for establishing broad corporate policies, setting strategic direction and a report byoverseeing management, which is responsible for the day-to-day operations of STFC, State Auto Mutual, our General Counsel.subsidiaries and affiliates. The information reviewed byBoard has established committees to assist in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.
Board Meetings and Attendance
The Board holds regular meetings typically during the Nominatingmonths of March, May, August and November, and holds special meetings when necessary. Our Board of Directors held four Board meetings during the fiscal year which ended December 31, 2016. In addition, on at least an annual basis, the Board and management discuss our strategic direction, succession planning, opportunities and threats to our industry.


Our Board meets in executive session, without management present, prior to each regular quarterly Board meeting. Consistent with our Corporate Governance Committee included information on the relationships between Mr. MeuseGuidelines and Stonehenge Financial Holdings and RED Capital Group, two of his affiliates. From time to time we make investments in debt and equity funds sponsored by affiliates of these two companies and receive securities broker-dealer services from an affiliate of RED Capital Group. The Nominating and Governance Committee of our Board affirmatively determined that Mr. Meuse is independent as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules, becauseduring 2016 there were four executive sessions with only independent directors present. In addition, following each regular quarterly Board meeting, our investmentsBoard meets in the funds sponsored by, and the fees paid to, these two companies and their affiliates are not material to us or to them and Mr. Meuse’s relationshipsexecutive session with these companies do not interfere with his independent judgment in carrying out his responsibilities as a director. The fees paid to either Stonehenge Financial Holdings and RED Capital Group in 2014 did not exceed $200,000. The information reviewed by the Nominating and Governance Committee also included information on the relationships of Mr. Baker and Mr. Fiorile as directors of State Auto Mutual. The Nominating and Governance CommitteeMutual Board of our Board affirmatively determined that Mr. Baker and Mr. Fiorile are independent as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules.

Directors, without management present. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines expressly provide that fivethe Lead Director acts as the presiding director at these executive sessions.

Directors are expected to attend Board meetings, meetings of the six standingCommittees on which they serve and the annual meeting of shareholders, with the understanding that on occasion a director may be unable to attend a meeting. Seven of our current directors attended 100% of the Board meetings and the meetings of all committees on which they served. Our other current director attended 90% of the Board meetings and the meetings of all committees on which he served. The Company's Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that directors are expected to attend our annual meetings of shareholders. All of our directors who were members of the Board at the time of last year's annual meeting of shareholders attended that meeting.
Board Composition
Currently, there are eight directors. If all three nominees are elected directors on May 5, 2017, there will be comprised solely of independent directors. Our Board’s Audit, Compensation, standing Independent, Nominatingeight directors on the Board and Governance, and Risk Committees meet this standard.one vacancy. Our Board of Directors has concludedbelieves it is desirable to have a vacancy available which could be filled should a person who could make a valuable contribution as a director become available.
The Board is committed to periodically reviewing the Board's composition to ensure that they have the Investmentright mix of skills, experience and Finance Committee does not need to be comprised solely of independent directors. Robert P. Restrepo, Jr. is and will remain our employee until his retirement and Michael E. LaRocco will be our employee, and thus they do not qualify as independent directors as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules. Mr. Restrepo is a membertenure. The current composition of the InvestmentBoard based on diversity, tenure, and Finance Committee,age is as follows:
proxygraphs4rgb03.jpg
Our Board has a breadth of skills and it is anticipatedexperience. As detailed above, in the "Backgrounds of Class II Director Nominees,""Background of Class I Director Nominee,""Background of Continuing Class I Directors," and "Background of Continuing Class III Directors," the Company believes that Mr.  LaRocco (if elected) will be appointed to the Investmentour Board has demonstrated leadership in a variety of positions across various professions and Finance Committee after the Annual Meeting.

industries. Our directors' professional skills and experience include:

DIRECTOR SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE
§Regulated industries experience§Communications and media experience
§Chief executive officer experience§Compensation and recruiting experience
§Financial expertise, including chief financial officer experience§Property and casualty industry experience
§Public company board experience§Consumer trends and marketing experience
Board and Executive Leadership: CEO Succession



Board Leadership
We are managed under the direction of our Board in the interest of all shareholders. Our Board delegates its authority to our senior executive team to manage the day-to-day operations and ongoing affairs of our business. Our Board requires that our senior executive team review major initiatives and actions with our Board prior to implementation.

As discussed elsewhere in this Proxy Statement, we and our subsidiaries operate and manage our businesses in conjunction with State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates under various management and cost sharing agreements under the leadership and direction of the same senior management team, and our insurance subsidiaries participate in a pooling arrangement with State Auto Mutual and certain of its insurance subsidiaries and affiliates which covers all of the property and casualty insurance written by our insurance subsidiaries. Because
Historically, because of thisour corporate structure, our Company and State Auto Mutual have always had a leadership structure whereby the same person servesserved as both chairman and chief executive officer of both companies. As such, our current chairman and chief executive officer, Mr. Restrepo, also currently servesHowever, in these same positions with State Auto Mutual.

In accordance with his employment agreement, Mr. Restrepo will retire as an employee of the Company no later than December 31, 2015. Mr. Restrepo will be succeeded by Mr. LaRocco as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer effective May 8,early 2015, with Mr. Restrepo continuing as a director and Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors until his retirement.

Both our Board and the State Auto Mutual Board formed their own executive search committees that worked together to identify and hire Mr. LaRocco as Mr. Restrepo’s successor as chief executive officer of both

our Company and State Auto Mutual. Members of our Board’s executive search committee were Mr. Baker, Ms. Mallesch and Mr. Williams. Mr. Fiorile was a member of the State Auto Mutual Board’s executive search committee.

Mr. LaRocco has entered into an employment agreement with the Company and State Auto Mutual commencing on April 27, 2015 and ending on December 31, 2018, unless terminated earlier due to Mr. LaRocco’s disability, death, voluntary termination of employment, or involuntary termination of employment by the Company for cause or without cause. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. LaRocco will perform the duties and offices of President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, State Auto Mutual and their subsidiaries and affiliates effective May 8, 2015. Beginning on January 1, 2019 and each anniversary of that date, the term of Mr. LaRocco’s employment agreement may be extended for an additional one-year period upon the mutual written consent of Mr. LaRocco, the Company and State Auto Mutual, not to exceed the end of the calendar year in which Mr. LaRocco attains age 65. Mr. LaRocco’s base salary will be $850,000, which amount may be increased by the Company’s Compensation Committee. He will also participate in the Company’s Leadership Bonus Plan (“LBP”), Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (“LTIP”), the Company’s stock purchase and retirement plans available to all employees, and will receive other compensation including relocation expenses. Mr. LaRocco’s employment agreement is more fully discussed in the Form 8-K filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2015.

Once Mr. LaRocco commences his duties as Chief Executive Officer, we will have a leadership structure whereby the positions of chief executive officer and chairman are separated, with Mr. LaRocco serving as Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Restrepo serving as Chairman. However, neither of these persons is independent under the Nasdaq listing rules. Furthermore, this leadership structure is temporary until Mr. Restrepo’s retirement. Our Board and the State Auto Mutual Board have begunbegan the process of considering whether or not to maintain our historical leadership structure, whereby the same person servesserved as chairman and chief executive officer of both our Company and State Auto Mutual, or to implement a different leadership structure, such as a structure whereby the positions of chief executive officer and chairman are separated with ana non-executive, independent director serving as chairman. As part of this process, the Boards will considerconsidered a number of factors, including the following:

whetherWhether separating the positions of chief executive officer and chairman could cause unnecessary complexity and complications and perhaps a split in our strategic direction, given the manner in which our businesses are operated;

whetherWhether the qualifications of our chief executive officer are better suited for the combined role or a separate position;

theThe possible benefits of separating the positions of chairman and chief executive officer, such as creating a level of accountability in that the chief executive officer reports directly to another person, i.e., the chairman, rather than a board; and

theThe extent to which separating the roles allows the person holding such position to focus on the responsibilities and duties of the chief executive officer or chairman, as the case may be.

Another factor considered by the Boards was the parent-subsidiary relationship of State Auto Mutual and STFC. This factor was especially important in considering the leadership structure of the two companies. After weighing the above factors, as well as others, it was determined that it was in the best interests of shareholders and policyholders to have a leadership structure whereby the parent company, State Auto Mutual, had an independent chairman and that the subsidiary, STFC, would be more effective and efficient with a combined chairman and chief executive officer. Accordingly, as of January 1, 2016, our Board elected Mr. LaRocco to serve as Chairman of the Board in addition to serving as our Chief Executive Officer. Conversely, the State Auto Mutual Board of Directors separated the duties of chairman and chief executive officer and elected James E. Kunk, an independent director, as its Chairman, with Mr. LaRocco continuing to serve as the Chief Executive Officer of State Auto Mutual.
Irrespective of whether or not the positions of chief executive officer and chairman are combined or separated, our Board has adopted a governance structure which includes:

A Board composed entirely of independent directors as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules, other than the Company’s current chairman and current and formerCompany's chief executive officers;

officer;

A Board composed of a majority of directors independent from State Auto Mutual;

An Independent Committee composed entirely of directors independent from State Auto Mutual and as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules;

Audit and Compensation Committees composed entirely of independent directors as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules; and

Established governance structures and processes and ethics guidelines.

Under our currenthistorical structure that our Board decided to maintain, we have a designated Lead Director. Our Lead Director’sDirector's responsibilities include, among other things, leading the executive session of our independent directors, being a primary advisor to and principal point of contact with our chairman and chief executive officer, working with our chairman and soliciting input from other Board members to develop a regular board meeting schedule and an agenda for each meeting, securing input from other directors on agenda items, ensuring the adequate flow of information from management to our Board and delivering the


chief executive officer’s performance evaluation on behalf of the Compensation Committee of our Board. Because ourOur current Lead Director Paul S. Williams, is not standing for re-election as a director, our Board has elected Director David R. Meuse, to succeed Mr. Williams as Lead Director effective upon the adjournment of the Annual Meeting.

As described above, our Board and the State Auto Mutual Board will be considering whether or not to maintain our historical leadership structure whereby the same person serves as chairman and chief executive officer of both our Company and State Auto Mutual. If the decision is made to not maintain that leadership structure and the positions of chairman and chief executive officer are to be held by different persons, our Board will consider whether or not to maintain thewho has served in such position of Lead Director or whether the Lead Director’s responsibilities can be carried out by our new chairman.

since May 2015.

Board Meetings and Board Committee Meetings

Our Board of Directors held five Board meetings during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Seven of our incumbent directors attended 100% of the Board meetings and the meetings of all committees on which they served. Our other two directors attended 88% or more of the Board meetings and the meetings of all committees on which they served.

Committees of the Board of Directors
Our Board has established an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, a Nominating and Governance Committee, a Risk Committee, an Investment and Finance Committee and a standing Independent Committee. All of the members of the Audit, Compensation, Nominating and Governance, Risk and Independent Committees are independent as determined by the Nasdaq listing rules. In addition, all of the members of the Audit and Compensation Committees are independent under the heightened standards of independence under the applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”)SEC and Nasdaq. Finally, none of the members of the Independent Committee serve as directors of State Auto Mutual. Our Board has adopted charters for each of the foregoing committees. The current charters for eachSee below "Availability of these committees, along with our Corporate Governance Guidelines,Documents."
The table below shows the current chairs and membership of the Board and each standing board committee, the independent status of Directors’ Ethical Principles, Employee Codeeach Board member and the number of Business ConductBoard and CodeBoard committee meetings held in fiscal year 2016.
proxygraphs5a05.jpg
*Mr. Markert attended all of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers, are available on our website. To access these documents, gothe Board meetings but was unable to http://www.stateauto.comattend one Compensation Committee meeting and click on “Investors”one Nominating and then “Corporate Governance.”

Governance Committee meeting. All other Board members attended 100% of the Board meetings and committee meetings held while they were a member of the Board or committees.    

Audit Committee
The Audit Committee is charged with several responsibilities, including: (1) appointment, compensation, evaluation, retention and oversight of the work performed by our independent registered public accounting firm; (2) reviewing our accounting functions, operations and management; (3) considering the adequacy and effectiveness of our internal controls and internal auditing methods and procedures; (4) meeting and consulting with our independent registered public accounting firm and with our financial and accounting personnel concerning the foregoing matters; (5) reviewing with our independent registered public accounting firm the scope of their audit and the results of their examination of our financial statements; (6) participating in the process of administering our EmployeeAssociate Code of Business Conduct and our Board of Directors’Directors' Ethical Principles set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines; (7) establishing procedures for receipt, retention and treatment of compliance regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, including procedures for the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of concerns regarding accounting or auditing matters; and (8) approving in advance any other work performed by our independent registered public accounting firm that it is permitted by law to perform for us. Present membersThe Audit Committee also prepares the Report of the Audit Committee are Chairperson Eileen A. Mallesch, Robert E. Baker, David R. Meuse, and Paul S. Williams. Based on a recommendation ofthat SEC rules require the Company to include in this proxy statement. See below "Audit Committee our Board has designated Eileen A. Mallesch as the “Audit Committee Financial Expert.” The Matters—Audit Committee held eight meetings during 2014.

Report for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2016."



Compensation Committee
The Compensation Committee is charged with several responsibilities, including: (1) evaluating and approving the compensation and fringe benefits provided to our executive officers and adopting compensation policies and practices that appropriately align pay and performance; (2) approving stock-based compensation plans and grants thereunder to employees or members of the Board; and (3) evaluating the compensation provided to the members of the Board and its committees. Present members of the Compensation Committee are Chairperson Robert E. Baker, David J. D’Antoni, Alexander B. Trevor and Paul S. Williams. The Compensation Committee held five meetings during 2014.

Our executive officers also serve as executive officers of State Auto Mutual, and, in general, during 20142016 the compensation expenses associated with our executive officers were allocated 65% to us and our subsidiaries and 35% to State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates under the Pooling Arrangement. See also “Relatedbelow "Related Person Transactions—Transactions Involving State Auto Mutual.”" It is for this reason that the Board of Directors of State Auto Mutual has its own compensation committee. The members of the State Auto Mutual compensation committeeCompensation Committee attend meetings of our Compensation Committee with regard to the compensation and benefit matters applicable to our and their executive officers, and report on such matters to the State Auto Mutual Board of Directors. During 2014, thePresent members of the State Auto Mutual compensation committee wereare Chairperson DwightRobert E. Smith,Baker, Michael J. Fiorile, and James E. Kunk. In March 2015, RobertKunk and Dwight E. Baker joined this committee as its chair.

Smith. See below "Compensation Committee Matters."

Nominating and Governance Committee
The Nominating and Governance Committee is charged with several responsibilities, including: (1) selecting nominees for election as directors; (2) reviewing the performance of our Board and individual directors; and (3) annually reviewing and recommending to our Board changes to our Corporate Governance Guidelines and Board of Directors’Directors' Ethical Principles. The members of the Nominating and Governance Committee are Chairperson S. Elaine Roberts, David J. D’Antoni, Eileen A. Mallesch and Thomas E. Markert. The Nominating and Governance Committee met six times in 2014. See also “Corporate Governance—below "Nomination of Directors” contained elsewhere in this Proxy Statement. It is expected that, if elected, Mr. Fiorile will serve on and chair the Nominating and GovernanceDirectors."
Risk Committee following the Annual Meeting.

The Risk Committee’sCommittee's purpose is to assist the Board in fulfilling its risk management oversight responsibilities, including oversight of the Company’sCompany's enterprise risk management systems and processes. Some of the Risk Committee’sCommittee's chief duties include: (1) reviewing with management the Company’sCompany's risk appetite statement; (2) monitoring and discussing with management the Company’sCompany's major enterprise risk exposures and the strategies and programs addressing these exposures; and (3) discussing information and technology risks with management. See below "The members of theBoard's Role in Enterprise Risk Committee are Chairperson S. Elaine Roberts, David J. D’Antoni, Eileen A. MalleschManagement."
Investment and Thomas E. Markert. Formed in late 2014, the RiskFinance Committee met only once during 2014 but, beginning in 2015, will meeting at least quarterly in accordance with its charter. It is expected that, if elected, Mr. Fiorile will serve on and chair the Risk Committee following the Annual Meeting.

The Investment and Finance Committee oversees our investment functions and those of our insurance subsidiaries. The members ofIts duties and responsibilities include considering and determining the InvestmentCompany's investment policy and Finance Committee are Chairperson David R. Meuse, Thomas E. Markert, Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., S. Elaine Robertsguidelines to be recommended to the Board and Alexander B. Trevor.upon approval from the Board, to be implemented by the Company. The Investment and Finance Committee met four times in 2014.

ensures that the investments and investment practices contemplated reflect the Company's objectives and constraints.

Independent CommitteesCommittee of STFC and State Auto Mutual

Both STFCSFTC and State Auto Mutual have standing Independent Committees. The members of the STFC Independent Committee must be independent from State Auto management be independent as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules, and be independent from State Auto Mutual. TheLikewise, the members of the State Auto Mutual Independent Committee must be both independent from State Auto management and STFC. The members of both Independent Committees must also be independent from STFC.

as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules.

These Independent Committees principally serve to review related person transactions between or among us and our subsidiaries, on the one hand, and State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates, on the other. Accordingly, before our Company and State Auto Mutual may enter into a related person transaction, each of

these Independent Committees must separately review the agreement and separately recommend approval to their respective Boards. Also, each of these Independent Committees separately reviews, on an annual basis, related person transactions which by their terms contain no specific termination date or which renew automatically at the end of the current term, and each of these Independent Committees separately decides whether to recommend that their respective Boards approve the renewal of such related person transaction.

These Independent Committees also help to determine which entity, our Company or State Auto Mutual, is best suited to take advantage of transactional opportunities presented by a third party. In evaluating business opportunities, these Independent Committees may elect to meet jointly, but in any event it is understood that each Independent Committee must receive substantially identical information in making its respective evaluation of the business opportunity. In this context, our Independent Committee strives to vigorously protect the interests of STFC and its shareholders, considering only the merits of the proposal, free from extraneous considerations or influences. As part of the review process, each of these Independent Committees must separately evaluate the business opportunity and separately recommend approval to their respective Boards before the two Boards of Directors may vote on any joint recommendation to proceed with the business transaction.

The members of our Independent Committee are Chairperson Alexander B. Trevor, David J. D’Antoni, and Paul S. Williams; none of whom are members of the Board of Directors of State Auto Mutual. The members of the State Auto Mutual Independent Committee are Chairperson James E. Kunk, Marsha P. Ryan, Edwin J. Simcox, Dwight E. Smith and Roger P. Sugarman; none of whom are members of our Company’s Board of Directors. Our Independent Committee, which only meets as needed, held three meetings in 2014. It is expected that, following the Annual Meeting, the members of our Independent Committee will be Mr. Trevor, Mr. D’Antoni, Ms. Mallesch (if elected), Mr. Markert, Mr. Meuse and Ms.  Roberts.

Executive Sessions of Independent Directors

Our Board meets in executive session, without management present, prior to each regular quarterly Board meeting. Consistent with our Corporate Governance Guidelines and the Nasdaq listing rules, during 2014 there were four executive sessions with only independent directors present. In addition, following each regular quarterly Board meeting, our Board meets in executive session with the State Auto Mutual board of directors, without management present. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that the Lead Director acts as the presiding director at these executive sessions.

Compensation of Outside Directors and Outside Director Compensation Table

Our non-employee directors, who we refer to as our “outside directors,” receive compensation for the services they perform as members of our Board and the Board committees on which they serve. The charter for the Compensation Committee requires the Compensation Committee to annually review the compensation of our outside directors and recommend any changes to such compensation to our Board. For 2014, the total annual retainer paid to our outside directors was $125,000, with $65,000, or 52%, paid in cash and $60,000, or 48%, paid in equity in the form of RSUs. For 2015, in conjunction with the decision by the Boards of Directors of our Company and State Auto Mutual to have two common directors on each Board, the Compensation Committees of our Company and State Auto Mutual met jointly to consider the director compensation arrangements for both Boards. The Compensation Committees reviewed peer group compensation and market date provided by Pay Governance, LLC, our Compensation Committee’s compensation consultant. Our Compensation Committee recommended to our Board, and our Board approved, increasing the total annual retainer paid to our outside directors for 2015 to $145,000, with $75,000, or 52%, to be paid in cash and $70,000, or 48%, to be paid in equity in the form of RSUs.

No meeting fees are payable to any of our directors, as our directors are expected to attend and participate in all meetings of the Board and the Board committees on which they serve without the incentive of additional compensation. Our Board may, however, elect to pay additional meeting fees to directors if it determines that

extraordinary circumstances warrant the formation of a special committee or necessitate a large number of meetings. No additional meeting fees were paid to our directors in 2014. For 2015, each chairperson of our permanent Board committees is to receive an additional $7,500 annual cash retainer, the same amount as paid in 2014, other than the chairpersons of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee, who are to receive an additional annual cash retainer of $17,500 and $12,500, respectively, the same amounts as paid in 2014. The chairperson of the ad hoc executive search committee (see “—Board and Executive Leadership: CEO Succession”) received an additional cash retainer of $3,750 per quarter during 2014, and the committee members received a cash retainer of $1,875 per quarter. The executive search committee received the same quarterly fee for the first quarter of 2015, after which the committee was disbanded upon the selection of Mr. LaRocco as our new chief executive officer. Our Lead Director will receive an additional cash retainer of $20,000, the same amount as paid in 2014. We reimburse our outside directors for the travel expenses they incur to attend Board and committee meetings and an annual Board retreat. The Company also reimburses each of our outside directors for the travel expenses incurred by a guest of the outside director to attend the annual Board retreat, subject to applicable tax laws.

Our outside directors may defer all or any portion of the cash compensation they receive for Board or committee service under our deferred compensation plan for directors. The amount of cash compensation earned by each director in 2014, whether or not deferred, is included in the amounts shown in the “Fees Paid or Earned in Cash” column of the “2014 Outside Director Compensation” table set forth below.

Our outside directors also receive equity compensation in the form of RSUs granted pursuant to our Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan (the “Directors’ RSU Plan”). An RSU is a unit representing one Common Share. The value of each RSU, on any particular day, is equal to the last reported sale price of a Common Share on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the immediately previous trading day. Each outside director was granted 3,245 RSUs under the Directors’ RSU Plan promptly following our 2014 Annual Meeting of our Shareholders. To determine the number of RSUs granted to each outside director, the targeted annual equity compensation for each director is divided by the average daily closing price of a Common Share during the prior calendar year. In addition, whenever a dividend is paid with respect to our Common Shares, an amount equal to the value of the dividend is paid to the holders of RSUs with respect to each RSU in their account on the dividend record date in the form of additional RSUs. RSUs vest upon the completion of six months of service as an outside director from the date of grant.

Our Compensation Committee has the authority, in its capacity as the administrative committee under the Directors RSU Plan, to decrease or increase the annual award of RSUs to outside directors by 500 to 5,000 RSUs without shareholder approval. The Directors’ RSU Plan generally requires outside directors to hold their RSUs until their service on the Board terminates, at which time the director may settle the RSUs in cash or Common Shares payable, at the director’s election, in a single lump sum or in annual installments over a five- or ten-year period. An outside director elected or appointed to the Board outside of an annual meeting of our shareholders will be granted a pro rata amount of RSUs based upon the number of anticipated days after the date of election or appointment until our next annual meeting of shareholders.

2014 Outside Director Compensation

In 2014, our outside directors received the following compensation:

Name

  Fees Paid or
Earned in Cash
($)		   Restricted
Share
Unit
Awards
($)(1)		   Total
($)		 

Robert E. Baker

   92,500     74,115     166,615  

David J. D’Antoni

   68,750     74,115     142,865  

Eileen A. Mallesch

   90,000     74,115     164,115  

Thomas E. Markert

   65,000     74,115     139,115  

David R. Meuse

   72,500     74,115     146,615  

S. Elaine Roberts

   68,750     74,115     142,865  

Alexander B. Trevor

   72,500     74,115     146,615  

Paul S. Williams

   92,500     74,115     166,615  



(1)

The total dollar amount shown in the Restricted Share Unit Awards column represents the cash value of the total number of RSUs awarded in 2014 valued at the closing price of Common Shares on the grant valuation date ($22.84 per RSU). This valuation, required for proxy statement reporting purposes, is based on a single day’s market value, which differs substantially from the one-year average price used to determine the actual grant. We believe the valuation methodology used by the Company is more representative of the value of the RSUs at the time of grant.

Outside Directors’ Ownership of Restricted Share Units

The following table sets forth the aggregate number of RSUs owned by each of our current outside directors as of March 13, 2015.

Name

Number of
Restricted Share Units

Robert E. Baker

23,392

David J. D’Antoni

26,945

Eileen A. Mallesch

16,824

Thomas E. Markert

23,392

David R. Meuse

25,160

S. Elaine Roberts

26,945

Alexander B. Trevor

25,160

Paul S. Williams

26,945The Board's Role in Enterprise Risk Management

Outside directors receive no other forms

Risk management activities include the development of compensation thanstrategies and implementation of actions intended to anticipate, identify, assess, monitor, mitigate and manage risks. Our Board views enterprise risk management as describedan integral part of our business and strategic planning.
Our Board's role in this section.

No stock options have been awarded to anythe process of enterprise risk management is one of oversight. The independent structure of our Board enables objective oversight of the outside directors since 2004,process through a governance structure that includes our Board and all previously awarded stock options have been exercised or have expiredsenior management.

Our senior management has direct responsibility for enterprise risk management. In 2015, we utilized an enterprise risk management committee comprised of our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Risk Officer ("CRO") and other senior executives. In 2016, the enterprise risk management committee was renamed the enterprise risk management working committee. It is comprised of the CRO and key members of management selected by their terms.

CommunicationsState Auto senior executives representing the entire Company. The CRO will report upon the activities of the committee including escalating appropriate issues and recommendations to senior management and the Board’s Risk Committee.

Responsibilities of the enterprise risk working committee include providing guidance and support for development and refinement of the overall risk management program, including policies, procedures, systems, processes, ensuring best practices are periodically evaluated, agreed upon and implemented. Among other things, this committee works with business units across the Company in carrying out its responsibility of anticipating, identifying, assessing, monitoring, mitigating and managing risks that could materially impact the Company, including its reputation, and the successful execution of its strategy.
Our Board has established a Risk Committee whose primary responsibility is to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, including oversight of the Company's enterprise risk management systems and processes. The Risk Committee's charter specifies that the Risk Committee is responsible to review with management the Company’s risk appetite, including quarterly reviews to measure compliance with the Board

As further describedrisk appetite. The charter also provides that the Risk Committee is responsible to monitor and discuss with management the Company's major enterprise risk exposures and the strategies and programs management has implemented or anticipates implementing into its practices, processes and control structure to address these exposures. The Risk Committee discusses with management at least annually information and technology risks, including business continuity and crisis management. The Risk Committee annually reviews and evaluates the Risk Committee's own effectiveness in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, we provide a process by which security holders may send communicationsperforming its enterprise risk management oversight duties. The Risk Committee provides quarterly reports on its enterprise risk oversight activities to our Board. Any security holder

To assist the Risk Committee in discharging its duties under its charter, the enterprise risk management working committee provides quarterly reports which monitor the status of major risks inherent in our business, including credit, market, liquidity, underwriting, operational, strategic, legal, litigation, compliance and regulatory risks. In addition, the Risk Committee regularly meets with our CRO, who desires to communicate with one or more of our directors may send such communication to any or all directors through our Corporate Secretary, by e-mail to corporatesecretary@stateauto.com or in writingreports to the Corporate Secretary at our principalChief Financial Officer. The CRO has direct access to the Risk Committee, including quarterly executive offices, 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Security holders should designate whether such communication should be sentsessions without other members of management in attendance. Besides meeting with the CRO, the Risk Committee also meets periodically with other members of management as the Risk Committee deems appropriate.
Other Board committees provide enterprise risk management oversight in their specific areas of responsibility. The Risk Committee coordinates with these Board committees to a specific director or to all directors. avoid overlaps as well as potential gaps in overseeing the Company’s enterprise risk management.
The Corporate SecretaryAudit Committee is responsible for forwarding such communicationoversight of risks related to accounting, auditing, and financial reporting, establishing and maintaining effective internal controls, and the process for establishing insurance reserves. Management provides periodic reports on these and other related risks, and the Audit Committee meets periodically with our officers responsible for the adequacy of legal and regulatory compliance. The CRO and General Counsel have direct access to the director or directors so designated by the security holder.

Director Attendance at Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that directors are expected to attend our annual meetings of shareholders. All of our directors who wereAudit Committee, including quarterly executive sessions without other members of management in attendance.

The Investment and Finance Committee considers financial risks relevant to our investment portfolio and activities, including credit and market risks, capital management and availability, liquidity and financing arrangements.
The Compensation Committee oversees the Boardrisks related to human capital and people risk, including our compensation plans and arrangements. As required by its charter, the Compensation Committee annually reviews and monitors incentive compensation arrangements to confirm that incentive pay policies and practices do not encourage unnecessary risk taking and are aligned with competitive market practices, utilizing our independent compensation consultant and outside legal counsel in this process. The Compensation Committee reviews and discusses, at least annually, the timerelationship between the Company's risk management policies and practices, corporate strategy and executive management compensation. Also, the Compensation Committee annually reviews and discusses with our Company’s management any disclosures required by SEC rules and regulations relating to the


Company’s compensation risk management. This discussion includes, among other things, whether and the extent to which the Company compensates and incentivizes our associates in ways that may create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.
Risk Assessment in Compensation Programs
Following the Compensation Committee's review with senior management, our independent compensation consultant and outside legal counsel of last year’s annual meeting of shareholders attendedpotential risks within the compensation programs, the Compensation Committee has concluded that meeting.

no risks exist due to the compensation programs that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Directors
Nomination of Directors

The Nominating and Governance Committee sets the minimum qualifications for persons it will consider to recommend for nomination for election or re-election (election and re-election are hereafter collectively referred to as “election”"election") as a director of the Company. These minimum qualifications are described in the Nominating and Governance Committee’sCommittee's charter, which is posted on our website as set forth in this section.website. See below "Availability of Corporate Governance Documents." The following matters will be considered in the Nominating and Governance Committee’sCommittee's determination of persons to recommend for nomination as directors of the Company: (i) freedom from relationships or conflicts of interest that could interfere with that person’sperson's duties as a director of the Company or to its shareholders; (ii) status as independent based on the then-current Nasdaq listing rules; (iii) business or professional skill and experience; (iv) temperament; (v) integrity; (vi) educational background; and (vii) judgment. The objective of the Nominating and Governance Committee in this regard is to nominate for election as directors persons who share our values and possess the following minimum qualifications: high personal and professional integrity; the ability to exercise sound business judgment; an inquiring mind; professional demeanor; and the time available to devote to Board activities and the willingness to do so. The Nominating and Governance Committee will consider these criteria in the context of an assessment of the perceived needs of our Board as a whole. Ultimately, the Nominating and Governance Committee’sCommittee's intention is to select nominees for election to our Board who the Nominating and Governance Committee believes will be effective, in conjunction with the other members of our Board, in collectively serving the long-term interests of the shareholders. In the context of recommending an incumbent director to be re-nominated for election to our Board, the Nominating and Governance Committee will focus its assessment on the contributions of such person during his or her Board tenure and such person’sperson's independence at that time.

As required by its charter, the Nominating and Governance Committee seeks to achieve diversity of occupational and personal backgrounds. The Nominating and Governance Committee considers diversity as a factor in director nominations. In making such selections, the Nominating and Governance Committee views diversity in a broad context to include race, gender, geography, industry experience and personal expertise.

In addition to incumbent directors who will be evaluated for re-nomination as described above, the Nominating and Governance Committee may maintain a list of other potential candidates whom the Nominating and Governance Committee may evaluate pursuant to the criteria set forth above for consideration as Board members. By following the procedures set forth below, shareholders may recommend potential candidates to be included on this list. As a matter of policy, the Nominating and Governance Committee will consider and evaluate such candidates recommended by shareholders in the same manner as all other candidates for nomination to our Board who are not incumbent directors.

The charter of the Nominating and Governance Committee details the process by which our Board of Directors fills vacancies on the Board. The Nominating and Governance Committee’sCommittee's charter provides that, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, when a director vacancy arises for any reason, the Nominating and Governance Committee will first look to the list of names of potential nominees, as described above, and make a preliminary evaluation of such person(s) based on the criteria set forth above. If there are no names on the list or if all of the names on this list are eliminated following such evaluation process, the Nominating and Governance Committee may solicit other potential nominees’nominees' names from our other directors, directors of our parent, the chairman or other persons who the Nominating and Governance Committee reasonably believes would have the opportunity to possess firsthand knowledge of a suitable candidate based on the criteria described above. The Nominating and Governance Committee may also hire a director search firm to identify potential candidates. Once the Nominating and Governance Committee has preliminarily concluded that a person(s) may meet the

criteria described above, the Nominating and Governance Committee will, at a minimum, obtain from such person(s) a completed Prospective Director Questionnaire which shall solicit information regarding the person’sperson's business experience, educational background, personal information, potential conflicts of interest and information relating to the person’sperson's business, personal or family relationships with the Company and other directors, among other matters. Following a review of such completed Prospective Director Questionnaire by the Nominating and Governance Committee and the chairmanChairman and counselCounsel for the Company, the Nominating and Governance Committee will conduct at least one interview with a person(s) whose candidacy it desires to pursue. Based on all information secured from the prospective nominee, including



a background check and a criminal record check, the Nominating and Governance Committee will meet and decide whether or not to recommend such person(s) for nomination for election as a director of the Company. Any decision by the Nominating and Governance Committee in this regard will reflect its judgment of the ability of the person(s) to fulfill the objectives outlined above.

We have adopted procedures by which shareholders may recommend individuals for membership to our Board. As described in its charter, it is the policy of the Nominating and Governance Committee to consider and evaluate candidates recommended by shareholders for membership on our Board in the same manner as all other candidates for nomination to our Board who are not incumbent directors. If a shareholder desires to recommend an individual for Board membership, then that shareholder must provide a written notice to the Company's Corporate Secretary of the Company at 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (the “Recommendation Notice”"Recommendation Notice"). For a recommendation to be considered by the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Recommendation Notice must contain, at a minimum, the following: (i) the name and address, as they appear on our books, and telephone number of the shareholder making the recommendation, including information on the number of shares owned; (ii) if such person is not a shareholder of record or if such shares are owned by an entity, reasonable evidence of such person’sperson's ownership of such shares or such person’sperson's authority to act on behalf of such entity; (iii) the full legal name, address and telephone number of the individual being recommended, together with a reasonably detailed description of the background, experience and qualifications of that individual; (iv) a written acknowledgement by the individual being recommended that he or she has consented to that recommendation and consents to our undertaking of an investigation into that individual’sindividual's background, experience and qualifications in the event that the Nominating and Governance Committee desires to do so; (v) the disclosure of any relationship of the individual being recommended with our Company or any of our subsidiaries or affiliates, whether direct or indirect; and (vi) if known to the shareholder, any material interest of such shareholder or individual being recommended in any proposals or other business to be presented at our next annual meeting of shareholders (or a statement to the effect that no material interest is known to such shareholder).

Other
Director Independence
The Nominating and Governance IssuesCommittee has affirmatively determined that seven of Interest

Formal Stock Ownership Holding Periods

our eight incumbent directors, namely Robert E. Baker, Michael J. Fiorile, Kym M. Hubbard, Eileen A. Mallesch, Thomas E. Markert, David R. Meuse and S. Elaine Roberts, are "independent" as determined by the Nasdaq listing rules. The Company’s Ownership Guidelines requireNominating and Governance Committee made this determination based upon its Section 16 officersreview of information included in director questionnaires provided by each of the incumbent directors and a report by our General Counsel. The information reviewed by the Nominating and Governance Committee included information on the relationship between Mr. Meuse and Stonehenge Financial Holdings, a company in which he has an ownership interest. From time to holdtime we make investments in debt and equity funds sponsored by affiliates of this company. The Nominating and Governance Committee of our Board affirmatively determined that Mr. Meuse is independent as determined under the net amount of Common Shares obtained throughNasdaq listing rules because our investments in the funds sponsored by, and the fees paid to, this company and its affiliates are not material to us or to them and Mr. Meuse's relationships with these companies do not interfere with the exercise of his independent judgment in carrying out his responsibilities as a director. The fees paid to either Stonehenge Financial Holdings or its affiliates in 2016 did not exceed $200,000. The information reviewed by the Nominating and Governance Committee also included information on the relationship between Ms. Hubbard and Ernst & Young LLP, the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and Ms. Hubbard's former employer. Ms. Hubbard retired from Ernst & Young LLP in April 2016 and joined our Board in September 2016. The Nominating and Governance Committee of our Board affirmatively determined that Ms. Hubbard is independent as determined under the objective independence standards set forth in the Nasdaq listing rules and that her prior employment relationship with Ernst & Young LLP does not interfere with the exercise of her independent judgment in carrying out her responsibilities as a director of the Company. Finally, the information reviewed by the Nominating and Governance Committee included information on the relationship of Mr. Baker and Mr. Fiorile as directors of State Auto Mutual. The Nominating and Governance Committee of our Board affirmatively determined that Mr. Baker and Mr. Fiorile are independent as determined under the objective independence standards set forth in the Nasdaq listing rules and that their service as directors of State Auto Mutual does not interfere with the exercise of their independent judgment in carrying out their responsibilities as directors of the Company.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines expressly provide that five of the six standing committees are to be comprised solely of independent directors. Our Board's Audit, Compensation, Independent, Nominating and Governance, and Risk Committees meet this standard. Our Board of Directors has concluded that the Investment and Finance Committee does not need to be comprised solely of independent directors. Michael E. LaRocco, who is our employee, and thus does not qualify as an independent director as determined under the Nasdaq listing rules, is a member of the Investment and Finance Committee.
Compensation of Outside Directors and Outside Director Compensation Table
The Company's philosophy is to provide competitive compensation necessary to attract and retain high-quality non-employee directors, who we refer to as our "outside directors." Outside directors receive compensation for the services they perform as members of our Board and the Board committees on which they serve. The Board believes that a substantial portion of director compensation should consist of equity-based compensation to assist in aligning the outside directors' interests with the interests


of our shareholders. Directors who are also employees of the Company (currently, only Mr. LaRocco) receive no additional compensation for services as a director.
The charter for the Compensation Committee requires the Compensation Committee to annually review the compensation of our outside directors and recommend any changes to such compensation to our Board. Because the Boards of Directors of our Company and State Auto Mutual have two common directors on each Board, the Compensation Committees of our Company and State Auto Mutual meet jointly to consider the director compensation arrangements for both Boards. At these meetings, usually held in November, the Compensation Committees review peer group compensation and market data provided by Pay Governance LLC, the compensation consultant for the Compensation Committee. For 2015 and 2016, the total annual retainer paid to our outside directors was $145,000, with $75,000, or 52%, paid in cash and $70,000, or 48%, paid in equity in the form of Restricted Share Units ("RSUs"). For 2017, our Compensation Committee recommended to our Board, and our Board approved, increasing the total annual retainer paid to our outside directors to $155,000, with $80,000, or 52%, to be paid in cash and $75,000, or 48%, to be paid in equity in the form of RSUs.
No meeting fees are payable to any of our directors, as our directors are expected to attend and participate in all meetings of the Board and the Board committees on which they serve without the incentive of additional compensation. Our Board may, however, elect to pay additional meeting fees to directors if it determines that extraordinary circumstances warrant the formation of a special committee or necessitate a large number of meetings. No additional meeting fees were paid to our directors in 2016. For 2017, each chairperson of our permanent Board committees is to receive an additional $7,500 annual cash retainer, the same amount as paid in 2016, other than the chairpersons of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee, who are to receive an additional annual cash retainer of $17,500 and $12,500, respectively, the same amounts as paid in 2016. Our Lead Director will receive an additional cash retainer of $20,000, the same amount as paid in 2016. We reimburse our outside directors for the travel expenses they incur to attend Board and committee meetings and an annual Board retreat. The Company also reimburses each of our outside directors for the travel expenses incurred by a guest of the outside director to attend the annual Board retreat, subject to applicable tax laws.
Our outside directors may defer all or any portion of the cash compensation they receive for Board or committee service under our deferred compensation plan for directors. The amount of cash compensation earned by each director in 2016, whether or not deferred, is included in the amounts shown in the "Fees Paid or Earned in Cash" column of the "2016 Outside Director Compensation" table set forth below.
Our outside directors also have received equity compensation in the form of RSUs granted pursuant to our Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan (the "Directors' RSU Plan"). An RSU is a unit representing one common share. The value of each RSU, on any particular day, is equal to the last reported sale price of a common share on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the immediately previous trading day. Following each annual meeting of shareholders, each outside director automatically receives an annual award of RSUs. Under the Directors' RSU Plan, the number of RSUs awarded annually will be determined by the administrative committee in accordance with the terms of the Directors' RSU Plan. The Compensation Committee has the power to increase or decrease the number of RSUs to be awarded to each of the outside directors not to exceed a maximum annual award of 10,000 RSUs. For 2016, our Compensation Committee determined that each outside director would be awarded a number of RSUs equal to the targeted annual equity compensation for outside directors divided by the average daily closing price of a common share during the prior (2015) calendar year. This calculation resulted in each outside director receiving an award of 2,988 RSUs following the 2016 annual meeting of the shareholders.
Under the Directors' RSU Plan, whenever a dividend is paid with respect to our common shares, an amount equal to the value of the dividend is paid to the holders of RSUs with respect to each RSU in their account on the dividend record date in the form of additional RSUs. RSUs vest upon the completion of six months of service as an outside director from the date of grant. Outside directors are generally required to hold their RSUs until their service on the Board terminates, at which time such outside director may settle his or her RSUs in cash or common shares payable, at the director’s election, in a single lump sum or in annual installments over a five- or ten-year period. An outside director elected or appointed to the Board outside of an annual meeting of our shareholders will be granted a pro rata amount of RSUs based upon the number of anticipated days after the date of election or appointment until our next annual meeting of shareholders.


2016 Outside Director Compensation
In 2016, our outside directors received the following compensation:
Name Fees Paid or Earned in Cash ($) 
Restricted Share Unit Awards ($)(1)
 Total Compensation ($)
Robert E. Baker (2)
 87,500 61,463 148,963
David J. D'Antoni 75,000 61,463 136,463
Michael J. Fiorile (2)
 82,500 61,463 143,963
Kym M. Hubbard (3)
 18,750 47,728 66,478
Eileen A. Mallesch 92,500 61,463 153,963
Thomas E. Markert 78,750 61,463 140,213
David R. Meuse 102,500 61,463 163,963
S. Elaine Roberts 75,000 61,463 136,463
Alexander B. Trevor (4)
 41,250 — 41,250
       
(1)  The total dollar amount shown in the Restricted Share Unit Awards column represents the cash value of the total number of RSUs awarded in 2016 valued at the closing price of common shares on the grant valuation date ($20.57 per RSU). This valuation, required for proxy statement reporting purposes, is based on a single day's market value, which differs substantially from the one-year average price used to determine the actual grant. We believe the valuation methodology used by the Company is more representative of the value of the RSUs at the time of grant.
(2)  The total compensation paid to Mr. Baker and Mr. Fiorile excludes any compensation they receive for their service on the State Auto Mutual Board of Directors.
(3)  Ms. Hubbard was first elected a director on September 13, 2016. Therefore, she was only eligible for a prorated RSU award and prorated amount of director fees for 2016.
(4)  Mr. Trevor's term as a director expired concurrently with the holding of the annual meeting of shareholders held May 6, 2016. Therefore, he was ineligible to be awarded any RSUs during 2016.
Outside Directors' Ownership of Restricted Share Units
The following table sets forth the aggregate number of RSUs owned by each of our current outside directors as of March 10, 2017:
Name
Number of
Restricted Share Units
Robert E. Baker30,618
David J. D’Antoni34,296
Michael J. Fiorile6,400
Kym M. Hubbard1,923
Eileen A. Mallesch23,818
Thomas E. Markert30,618
David R. Meuse32,448
S. Elaine Roberts34,296
Outside directors receive no other forms of compensation from the Company other than as described in this section.
No stock options or vesting of restricted stock until the later of (i) the first anniversaryhave been awarded to any of the date the officer exercised theoutside directors since 2004, and all previously awarded stock options have been exercised or vestedhave expired by their terms.


Communications with the Board
As further described in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, we provide a process by which shareholders may send communications to our Board. Any security holder who desires to communicate with one or more of our directors may send such communication to any or all directors through our Corporate Secretary, by e-mail to corporatesecretary@stateauto.com or in writing to the restricted stockCorporate Secretary at our principal executive offices, 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Security holders should designate whether such communication should be sent to a specific director or (ii)to all directors. The Corporate Secretary is responsible for forwarding such communication to the date on whichdirector or directors so designated by the officer satisfies the Ownership Target Amounts. (See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Stock Ownership Guidelines.”)

Directors’security holder.

Other Governance Issues of Interest
Directors' Stock Ownership Guidelines

Our Company’sCompany's Corporate Governance Guidelines contain the expectation that each of our outside directors will own Company shares or RSUs granted under the Directors RSU Plan having a total market value of at least four times the then current cash portion of the director’sdirector's annual retainer, which was $65,000 for 2014 and will be $75,000 for 2015.2016. Each director has five years to attain this level of ownership. Our directors are required to hold all RSUs until their membership on the Board terminates.

As of March 13, 2015,10, 2017, all of our current directors havehad satisfied their ownership requirements under these guidelines.

guidelines or were within the five-year period for satisfying their ownership requirement.

Anti-Hedging Policy

A policy adopted by our Board prohibits all Company employees and members of the Board from engaging in certain hedging transactions with respect to Company securities held by them, including short sales and other transactions that shift the economic consequences of ownership of Company securities to a third party. Another policy adopted by the Board prohibits our Section 16 officers and members of the Board from holding Company securities in a margin account or otherwise pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan. See “Compensationbelow "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Anti-Hedging Policy.”

"

Availability of Corporate Governance Documents

Availability of Corporate Governance Documents
The following documents are available on our website at www.stateauto.com under “Investors”"Investors" and then under “Corporate Governance”:

The charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee, Risk Committee, Investment and Finance Committee and standing Independent Committee;

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, including Board of Directors’ Ethical Principles;

Our Employee Code of Business Conduct; and

Our Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers.

ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT

The Board’s Role in Enterprise Risk Management

Risk management activities include the development of strategies and implementation of actions intended to anticipate, identify, assess, monitor, mitigate and manage risks. Our Board views enterprise risk management as an integral part of our business and strategic planning.

Our Board’s role in the process of enterprise risk management is one of oversight. The independent structure of our Board enables objective oversight of the process through a governance structure that includes Board and management committees.

The direct responsibility for enterprise risk management lies with our senior management. We utilize an internal enterprise risk management committee comprised of our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”) and other senior executives. Among other things, this internal committee works with business units across the Company in carrying out its responsibility of anticipating, identifying, assessing, monitoring, mitigating and managing risks that could materially impact the Company, including its reputation, and the successful execution of its strategy.

Our Board has delegated its enterprise risk oversight responsibility to various committees of the Board, believing risk oversight is best performed by the committee with relevant knowledge in its area of responsibility.

The Risk Committee is the committee with primary responsibility to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, including oversight of the Company’s enterprise risk management systems and processes. The Risk Committee’s charter specifies that the Risk Committee is responsible to review with management the Company’s risk appetite, including quarterly reviews to measure compliance with the risk appetite. The charter also provides that the Risk Committee is responsible to monitor and discuss with management the Company’s major enterprise risk exposures and the strategies and programs management has implemented or anticipates implementing into its practices, processes and control structure to address these exposures. The Risk Committee discusses with management at least annually information and technology risks, including business continuity and crisis management. The Risk Committee annually reviews and evaluates the

Risk Committee’s own effectiveness in performing its enterprise risk management oversight duties. The Risk Committee provides quarterly reports on its enterprise risk oversight activities to our Board.

To assist the Risk Committee in discharging its duties"Corporate Governance" then under its charter, management provides quarterly reports which monitor the status of major risks inherent in our business, including credit, market, liquidity, underwriting, operational, strategic, legal, litigation, compliance and regulatory risks. In addition, the Risk Committee regularly meets with our CRO, who reports to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The CRO has direct access to the Risk Committee, including quarterly executive sessions without other members of management in attendance. Besides meeting with the CRO, the Risk Committee also meets periodically with other members of management as the Risk Committee deems appropriate.

Other Board committees provide enterprise risk management oversight in their specific areas of responsibility. The Risk Committee coordinates with these Board committees to avoid overlaps as well as potential gaps in overseeing the Company’s enterprise risk management.

The Audit Committee is responsible for oversight of risks related to accounting, auditing and financial reporting, establishing and maintaining effective internal controls, and the process for establishing insurance reserves. Management provides quarterly reports on these related risk areas and the Audit Committee meets periodically with our officers responsible for the adequacy of legal and regulatory compliance. The CRO and General Counsel have direct access to the Audit Committee, including quarterly executive sessions without other members of management in attendance.

The Investment and Finance Committee considers financial risks relevant to our investment portfolio and activities, including credit and market risks, capital management and availability, liquidity and financing arrangements.

The Compensation Committee oversees the risks related to human capital and people risk, including our compensation plans and arrangements. As required by its charter, the Compensation Committee annually reviews and monitors incentive compensation arrangements to confirm that incentive pay policies and practices do not encourage unnecessary risk taking and are aligned with competitive market practices, utilizing our independent compensation consultant and outside legal counsel in this process. The Compensation Committee reviews and discusses, at least annually, the relationship between the Company’s risk management policies and practices, corporate strategy and executive management compensation. Also, the Compensation Committee annually reviews and discusses with our Company’s management any disclosures required by SEC rules and regulations relating to the Company’s compensation risk management. This discussion includes, among other things, whether and the extent to which the Company compensates and incentivizes our associates in ways that may create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Risk Assessment in Compensation Programs

Following the Compensation Committee’s review with senior management, our independent compensation consultant and outside legal counsel of potential risks within the compensation programs, the Compensation Committee has concluded that no risks exist due to the compensation programs that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the compensation program for our named executive officers (NEOs).

Executive Summary

2014 Compensation Summary

"Governance Documents":
•

Base Salary. The salaries of our NEOs increased by approximately 3% in 2014, which is consistent with the practices of other financial services and insurance companies (including many of our peers).

•

Short-Term Incentive Compensation. The payout on the Company performance goals under the LBP as a percentage of the target Company performance LBP bonus for 2014 (where the target percentage equals 100%) was 146.2% for Messrs. Restrepo, English, Fitch and Yano and 157.5% for Ms. Buss. The payout on the individual performance goals under the LBP as a percentage of the target individual performance LBP bonus for 2014 (where the target percentage equals 100%) was 50% for Mr. Restrepo, 170% for Mr. English, 170% for Mr. Fitch, 180% for Mr. Yano and 180% for Ms. Buss. In August 2014, the Committee made adjustments to the LBP Combined Ratio, Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio and specialty insurance combined ratio performance measures originally selected for the Company performance component of the LBP. The adjustments excluded from the LBP Combined Ratio, Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio and specialty insurance combined ratio performance measures $129.7 million in charges related to reserve strengthening for our terminated Risk Evaluation & Design LLC (“RED”) program business and also excluded from the LBP Combined Ratio performance measure $10.6 million in information technology reorganization-related severance expenses and vendor fees (see “Short-Term Incentive Compensation—Leadership Bonus Plan Bonuses—LBP Award Process” for more information regarding these adjustments).

•

Performance Award Units. We awarded cash-based performance award units (“PAUs”) to our NEOs for the 2012-2014 performance period under the State Auto Financial Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (“LTIP”). We have not determined the value of these PAUs because the final peer group data for the 2012-2014 performance period has yet to be released. However, based on preliminary performance information indicating that the Company’s overall performance for the 2012-2014 performance period relative to the LTIP Peer Group (as defined below in “Executive Compensation Program Elements—Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation—Performance Award Units—PAU Award Process”) falls within the 40th percentile, we currently expect that the PAUs awarded to our NEOs (except for Ms. Buss) for the 2012-2014 performance period will be valued significantly below target. We currently expect that the PAUs awarded to Ms. Buss for the 2012-2014 performance period will be valued significantly above target.

•

Equity Compensation. In 2014, we awarded stock options and restricted common shares to our NEOs under the State Auto Financial Corporation 2009 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended (“2009 Equity Plan”).

The following table shows for each NEO: (i) the targeted bonus payout under the LBP for 2014 and the actual payout under the LBP for 2014; (ii) the targeted value of the PAUs granted for the 2012-2014 performance period and the amount accrued by the Company for the PAUs granted for the 2012-2014 performance period; and (iii) the targeted value of the equity compensation awarded to our NEOs in 2014 and the value of the equity compensation awarded to our NEOs in 2014 as of December 31, 2014.

  Short-Term Incentive
Compensation		  PAUs  Equity
Compensation		  TOTAL 
  Target  Actual  Target  Accrued  Target  Value  Target  Value 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

 $662,002   $808,635   $753,027   $320,790   $484,212   $233,172   $1,899,241   $1,362,597  

Steven E. English

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 $337,500   $521,708   $219,375   $93,454   $141,081   $67,946   $697,956   $683,108  

Clyde H. Fitch

Senior Vice President and Chief Sales Officer

 $270,000   $417,366   $152,100   $64,795   $97,812   $47,103   $519,912   $529,264  

James A. Yano

Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel

 $198,000   $312,998   $152,100   $64,795   $97,812   $47,103   $447,912   $424,896  

Jessica E. Buss

Senior Vice President, Specialty Lines

 $206,250   $339,879   $158,438   $291,843   $101,881   $49,060   $466,569   $680,782  

Impact of State Auto Group on Compensation of NEOs

Our executive compensation program reflects our corporate and management structure and our relationship with State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group (as defined on page 76 of this Proxy Statement). We and our subsidiaries operate and manage our businesses together with State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group under various pooling, management and cost sharing agreements under the leadership and direction of the same senior management team. See “Related Person Transactions—Transactions Involving State Auto Mutual” on page 76 of this Proxy Statement for a discussion of these agreements.

As a result, our NEOs are also officers of State Auto Mutual and provide services to the Company, State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group (e.g., Mr. Restrepo serves as the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of both the Company and State Auto Mutual). Therefore, when determining the compensation of our NEOs, the Committee takes into account the services our NEOs perform for the Company and the services they perform for State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group. The Committee targets the total amount of each element of compensation payable to our NEOs at or close to the median compensation level in our competitive market, which we define as insurance companies similar in size to the State Auto Group, as opposed to insurance companies similar in size to the Company (See “—Benchmarking of Executive Compensation Program Elements” on page 34 of this Proxy Statement). In addition, the performance measures applicable to the Company performance LBP bonus opportunity and the PAUs awarded to our NEOs in 2014 are based on the performance of the State Auto Group. The charts below set forth the total revenues and total assets of the median company within the NEO Peer Group and the Company and the total net written premiums and total admitted assets of the State Auto Group, in each case for the year ended and at December 31, 2013 (the companies included in the NEO Peer Group used for 2014 compensation decisions were selected based on 2013 financial data).

Total Revenues in 2013

LOGO

Total Assets as of December 31, 2013

LOGO

Because our NEOs perform services for the Company, State Auto Mutual and other members of the State Auto Group, we generally allocated the compensation expenses in 2014 for such services 65% to the Company and its subsidiaries and 35% to State Auto Mutual and certain of its other subsidiaries and affiliates. The compensation of our NEOs as disclosed in this Proxy Statement, however, includes all compensation expenses for the services performed by our NEOs for the Company, State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group. As a result, any analysis conducted regarding the Company and its peers based on the compensation disclosed in this Proxy Statement should consider that such disclosure includes compensation provided to our NEOs for services they performed for State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group. The

following table allocates the compensation reported for each NEO in the “Total” column of the Summary Compensation Table on page 53 of this Proxy Statement between the Company, on the one hand, and State Auto Mutual and certain of its other subsidiaries and affiliates, on the other hand, based on the compensation expense allocation in effect on December 31, 2014 (i.e., 65% to the Company and 35% to State Auto Mutual and certain of its other subsidiaries and affiliates):

   2014   2013   2012 
  State Auto
Financial		   State Auto
Mutual		   State Auto
Financial		   State Auto
Mutual		   State Auto
Financial		   State Auto
Mutual		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

  $1,966,775    $1,059,032    $1,795,674    $966,901    $1,728,804    $930,894  

Steven E. English

  $910,122    $490,066    $688,143    $370,538    $531,101    $276,078  

Clyde H. Fitch

  $721,569    $388,537    $565,518    $304,510    $482,346    $259,724  

James A. Yano

  $651,303    $350,701    $507,502    $273,271    $379,295    $204,235  

Jessica E. Buss

  $632,748    $340,711    $646,432    $348,079    $519,227    $239,583  

Pay for Performance

The Committee conducted a pay for performance analysis comparing (i) the total realizable pay earned by our CEO over the five-year period ended December 31, 2013 to the total realizable pay earned by the CEOs of each member of the NEO Peer Group over that period, and (ii) the total shareholder return (“TSR”), premium growth, GAAP combined ratio, total equity growth and return on equity of the Company over the five-year period ended December 31, 2013 to the TSR, premium growth, GAAP combined ratio, total equity growth and return on equity of the members of the NEO Peer Group over that period.

The total realizable pay used in our pay for performance analysis includes:

base salary earned during the five-year period;

actual annual cash bonuses earned during the period;

value of cash incentives earned for multi-year performance plans that began and ended during the period;

the vesting date value (as opposed to grant date value) of service-based restricted common share awards granted during the period and the value of any unvested restricted common share awards made during the period based on the Company’s stock price as of December 31, 2013; and

any exercise gains of options granted during the period and the paper value of any gains on any unexercised options received during the period based on the Company’s stock price as of December 31, 2013.

Based on input from its compensation consultant, Pay Governance, LLC, the Committee concluded that total realizable pay provides a more accurate basis for comparing the historical alignment of pay and performance than the information reported in the Summary Compensation Table. Unlike the amounts reported in the Summary Compensation Table, total realizable pay increases or decreases depending on our annual and long-term results and increases or decreases in our stock price and, as a result, better reflects the Company’s performance in comparison to the results of our peers.

The Committee uses a five-year period in its analysis to provide a long-term perspective and include multiple complete PAU performance periods. The Committee uses the NEO Peer Group (which includes insurance companies comparable to the State Auto Group in terms of both size and type of business) in its analysis because the Committee (i) takes into account the services our CEO performs for the Company and the services he performs for State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group when determining the amount of his compensation and (ii) targets the total amount of each element of compensation payable to our CEO at or close to the median compensation level in our competitive market, which we define as insurance companies similar in size to the State Auto Group (See “—Benchmarking of Executive Compensation Program Elements” on page 34 of this Proxy Statement for a more detailed description of the NEO Peer Group).

As shown in the chart below, (i) the total realizable pay earned by our CEO during the five-year period ended December 31, 2013 placed the Company in the 33rd percentile when compared to the NEO Peer Group (the individual members of which are identified as diamonds in the chart below) and (ii) the TSR of the Company over the five-year period ended December 31, 2013 placed the Company in the lowest percentile when compared to the NEO Peer Group.

CEO REALIZABLE PAY vs. TSR: 2009 to 2013

LOGO

The premium growth, GAAP combined ratio, total equity growth and return on equity of the Company over the five-year period ended December 31, 2013 placed the Company in the 15th percentile, 3rd percentile, 11th percentile and lowest percentile, respectively, when compared to the NEO Peer Group. Based on the percentile rankings of the Company yielded by our pay for performance analysis, both the Committee and Pay Governance, LLC concluded that the compensation we paid to our CEO for the five-year period ended December 31, 2013 was aligned with our performance for the period.

Modifications to Executive Compensation Program

We held our annual shareholder advisory vote regarding the compensation of our Named Executive Officers, commonly referred to as a “say-on-pay” vote, at our 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. Our shareholders overwhelmingly approved the compensation of our Named Executive Officers, with approximately 99% of the votes cast in favor of our 2014 “say-on-pay” resolution. Since our 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the Committee has considered the results of the 2014 “say-on-pay” vote in its evaluation of our executive compensation programs and practices. Based on the strong support our shareholders expressed at our 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the Committee did not make any changes to our executive compensation program as a result of the 2014 “say-on-pay” vote. We did, however, make the following changes to our

executive compensation program and practices, which we believe will better align the program with what we consider to represent good corporate governance practices and improve our program and its administration.

•

Restructuring of Board and Compensation Committee. In 2014, as described in more detail in “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors—Relationship with State Auto Mutual and Changes in Board Structure,” the N&G Committees restructured the STFC and State Auto Mutual Boards so that each board would have two common directors (i.e., a director that serves on both the STFC and State Auto Mutual Boards). In that regard, Robert E. Baker, currently an STFC director and Chairman of the Committee, was elected to the State Auto Mutual Board of Directors and appointed Chairman of its compensation committee in March 2015. Also, Michael J. Fiorile, currently a director of State Auto Mutual, has been nominated for election as an STFC Class III director at the Annual Meeting. It is expected that, if elected, Mr. Fiorile will serve on the Committee following the Annual Meeting. The members of the State Auto Mutual compensation committee will continue to attend meetings of the Committee and report on such matters to the State Auto Mutual Board of Directors. The N&G Committees believe that the restructuring will (i) improve communications and engagement between the boards, their committees and management, (ii) encourage knowledge transfer and sharing, (iii) produce cost savings through eliminated positions and (iv) enhance the skill sets and expertise of the directors.

•

Revised Weighting of LBP Components.For 2014, the Committee (i) reduced the percentage of the LBP target bonus opportunity based on Company performance relative to annual plan targets to 70% for Ms. Buss and 65% for Messrs. English, Fitch and Yano and (ii) increased the percentage of the LBP target bonus opportunity based on individual performance to 30% for Ms. Buss and 35% for Messrs. English, Fitch and Yano. The Committee made these adjustments to enhance the emphasis of the LBP for our non-CEO NEOs during the CEO transition period on (i) teamwork among our non-CEO NEOs and (ii) the individual responsibilities of our non-CEO NEOs for corporate initiatives. The Committee made smaller adjustments to the allocation of Ms. Buss’s LBP target bonus opportunity because, unlike our other NEOs, a portion of her LBP bonus is subject to the achievement of performance measures relating to her business unit.

•

Awarded Restricted Stock to all NEOs. In 2014, we awarded restricted common shares to all of our NEOs in addition to stock options to (i) reduce our usage of Common Shares under our equity compensation plans, (ii) strengthen the alignment between the interests of the NEOs and our shareholders and (iii) encourage retention. Restricted stock also represents a significant element of the compensation paid to executives at many peer companies that we compete with for executive talent and builds appropriate levels of Common Share ownership among our executive team.

•

Entered into New Executive Agreements with non-CEO NEOs.We entered into a new change of control agreement, which we refer to as “executive agreements,” with each of our NEOs other than Mr. Restrepo effective as of October 27, 2014. The new executive agreements with these NEOs, which are identical in all respects, replaced their previous change of control agreements which were expiring by their terms.

Compensation Policies and Practices

We endeavor to maintain governance practices that are consistent with what we believe represent current best practices, including with respect to the oversight of our executive compensation program. Our compensation policies and practices include the following:

•

No Tax Gross-Up Payments in Change of Control Agreements. The executive change of control agreements between the Company and our NEOs do not entitle our NEOs to any tax gross-up payments. (See “Agreements with Named Executive Officers” on page 62 of this Proxy Statement.)

•

Acceleration of Vesting of Equity Awards Subject to “Double Trigger.” The 2009 Equity Plan permits the accelerated vesting of awards upon a change of control only if the recipient’s employment with the

Company terminates within one year of the change in control, provided, that if the change in control involves a change in the ownership of the Company and the successor entity does not provide benefits to the recipient of equal or greater value at the time of the change in control transaction, the award will automatically vest upon the closing of the transaction.

•

Stock Ownership Holding Periods. The Company’s Ownership Guidelines (as defined below in “Stock Ownership Guidelines”) require our Section 16 officers to hold the net amount of Common Shares obtained through the exercise of stock options or vesting of restricted common shares until the later of (i) the first anniversary of the date the officer exercised the stock options or (ii) the date on which the officer satisfies the Ownership Target Amounts (as defined below in “Stock Ownership Guidelines”).

•

Anti-Hedging Policy. All Company employees, including our NEOs, and members of the Board are subject to a Company policy that prohibits them from engaging in certain hedging transactions with respect to Company securities held by them, including short sales and other transactions that shift the economic consequences of ownership of Company securities to a third party. Our executive officers and members of the Board are also subject to a Company policy that prohibits them from holding Company securities in a margin account or otherwise pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan.

•

Independent Compensation Consultant. The Committee’s independent compensation consultant, Pay Governance, LLC, is engaged directly by the Committee and performs services solely for the Committee.

•

“Clawback” Obligations Imposed in Change of Control Agreements. The employment agreement and executive agreement between the Company and Mr. Restrepo and the executive change of control agreements between the Company and our other NEOs include a “clawback” provision that authorizes the Board to require the NEO to repay all or any portion of the severance benefits paid to the NEO thereunder upon the occurrence of the events described below in “Agreements with Named Executive Officers” on page 62 of this Proxy Statement. If the Board determines that the NEO engaged in fraudulent conduct, the Board must seek repayment of such severance benefits.

•

Limited Perquisites. We provide our NEOs minimal perquisites not tied to individual or Company performance, which we believe are well below the typical practices of companies of comparable size and have limited cost.

•

Limited Committee Discretion to Increase Awards. Except for the individual performance component of the LBP, the Committee may not increase awards under our short-term or long-term incentive plans. The Committee retains the discretion to decrease awards under our short-term and long-term incentive plans.

•

No Repricing of Underwater Stock Options. As stated in the 2009 Equity Plan, the Company will not reprice, replace or repurchase underwater stock options without first obtaining shareholder approval.

Executive Compensation Philosophy

We structure our executive compensation program to attract, retain, motivate and reward top caliber executives who deliver on the following key elements of our business strategy:

•

Capital Management as measured by return on equity.

•

Enterprise Risk Management that is operationalized and integrated into our capital allocation, product development, pricing, claims and service capabilities.

•

Top-Quartile Performance as measured against peers.

We continue to believe that achieving success in these areas will increase the price of our Common Shares over the long term and should be rewarded by our compensation program. In addition to incenting our executives to achieve success in these areas, our executive compensation program is also designed to:

Align the individual compensation of our executives with the long-term value delivered to our shareholders.

Offer compensation that reflects Company performance and is competitive.

Encourage appropriate share ownership while balancing short- and long-term perspectives.

Each element of our executive compensation program serves a unique role in establishing an appropriate balance between the rewards for short-term and long-term performance that we believe will support our efforts to increase the price of our Common Shares over the long-term. (See “Executive Compensation Program Elements” on page 35 of this Proxy Statement.)

How the Amount of Executive Compensation is Determined

Role of Committee, Senior Management, Compensation Consultants and Other Advisors

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Committee requests and receives regular input and recommendations from the Board, management, the Board of Directors and Compensation Committee of State Auto Mutual, an executive compensation consultant and other advisors. The Committee also regularly engages in discussions and continuing education to better understand compensation trends, regulatory developments relating to compensation issues and the Company’s compensation issues and objectives. New members of the Committee also complete an additional comprehensive initial training program. Management informs and assists the Committee in establishing and monitoring performance goals, and in refining our executive compensation program.

As a result of the sharing of services and compensation expenses among the Company and the other members of the State Auto Group (See “—Impact of State Auto Group on Compensation of NEOs” on page 27 of this Proxy Statement), the Board of Directors and Compensation Committee of State Auto Mutual are involved in the performance evaluation process of our CEO. In addition, the members of State Auto Mutual’s Compensation Committee attend the meetings of the Committee. (See “Corporate Governance and Board of Directors—Board Meetings and Board Committee Meetings” on page 17 of this Proxy Statement.)

In making compensation decisions related to both the form and the amount of compensation, the Committee has historically relied upon competitive information obtained from its compensation consultant. In 2014, the Committee engaged and utilized the services of Pay Governance, LLC, a compensation consultant. Pay Governance, LLC performs services solely for the Committee. During 2014, Pay Governance, LLC attended and participated in all Committee meetings and advised the Committee regarding (i) the effectiveness, competitiveness and design of our overall executive compensation program, its policies and practices and specific compensation packages for our NEOs and other executives, (ii) the competitiveness of compensation to our outside directors in comparison to their peers at similar public companies, (iii) the composition of the NEO Peer Group, (iv) the content and form of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, (v) the alignment between the compensation of our NEOs and our performance and (vi) special requests of the Committee with respect to issues relating to the Company’s executive compensation program. During 2014, the Company did not engage Pay Governance, LLC or its affiliates for any services beyond its support of the Committee.

In 2014, the Committee requested and received completed questionnaires from Pay Governance, LLC and the Committee’s outside legal counsel relating to their respective independence. Based on the completed questionnaires and other factors, the Committee has confirmed the independence of Pay Governance, LLC and the Committee’s outside legal counsel and determined that its engagement of Pay Governance, LLC and the Committee’s outside legal counsel did not raise any conflict of interest.

Benchmarking of Executive Compensation Program Elements

We believe that in order to achieve the objectives of our executive compensation program, including retaining our executive talent, the Company must target competitive compensation. To determine what constitutes competitive compensation for our NEOs, the Committee considers data contained in (and analysis of such data provided by its compensation consultant):

proxy statements filed by other publicly-held insurance companies comparable to the State Auto Group in terms of both size and type of business (the “NEO Peer Group”); and

pay surveys of the insurance and financial services industry relating to public, private and mutually-owned insurance companies and public and private financial services companies (the “Survey Data”).

NEO Peer Group

The Committee, with input from its compensation consultant and management, approves property and casualty insurance companies to be part of the NEO Peer Group based on (i) their status as public companies and (ii) whether their size and business overlap with the State Auto Group, which is larger than the Company. Public companies are selected because they are required to publicly disclose detailed information in their SEC filings regarding the compensation of their NEOs and their executive compensation programs, which allows us to compare the competitiveness of the compensation of our NEOs and executive compensation program with those of our public company competitors. In considering business overlap, companies are selected that have a significant portion of their business in personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, specialty, workers’ compensation and commercial property and casualty insurance. The Committee considers premium volume, total assets, market capitalization and number of employees when determining whether a company’s size overlaps with the State Auto Group. Companies similar in size to the State Auto Group are selected because our NEOs are also officers of State Auto Mutual and provide services to our Company, State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group. Some of the companies in the NEO Peer Group, however, are substantially larger than the State Auto Group while others are smaller. Normally, companies included in the NEO Peer Group are within one-half to two times the size of State Auto Group. The size of the median company within the NEO Peer Group is comparable to the State Auto Group. The members of the NEO Peer Group change periodically because of mergers, acquisitions, start-ups, spinoffs and similar transactions.

The NEO Peer Group used for 2014 compensation decisions was comprised of the following 19 companies:

Alleghany Corporation

Ÿ

AmTrust Financial Services Inc.

Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.

The Charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee, Risk Committee, Investment and Finance Committee and standing Independent Committee;

Cincinnati Financial Corporation

Ÿ

Erie Indemnity Company

Horace Mann Educators Corporation

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, including Board of Directors’ Ethical Principles;

Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation

Ÿ

Kemper Corporation

Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.

Our Associate Code of Business Conduct; and

Mercury General Corporation

Ÿ

Montpelier Re Holdings Ltd.

The Navigators Group, Inc.

Old Republic International Corporation

OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd.

Safety Insurance Group, Inc.

Selective Insurance Group Inc.

The Hanover Insurance Group

United Fire Group, Inc.

White Mountains Insurance Group

Our Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers.

Survey Data

The Survey Data complements the NEO Peer Group information by providing broader comparisons, which allows us to more comprehensively assess the compensation we pay to our executive officers relative to the compensation paid in the insurance and financial services industry to similar positions.

Use of Compensation Data

When setting base salaries, short-term and long-term incentive compensation, we use NEO Peer Group data when it relates to a comparable position at the Company and Survey Data that relates to individuals in similar positions at insurers similar in size to the State Auto Group (which we refer to as our “competitive market”). We use NEO Peer Group data to benchmark the compensation of some NEOs and Survey Data to benchmark the compensation of our NEOs and other executives. If relevant data is available from both the NEO Peer Group and

the Survey Data for a position, we average the results to determine the benchmark. For example, if the median level of base salary for chief executive officers reported by the NEO Peer Group and the Survey Data was $815,000 and $840,000, respectively, we would average the two results to establish a median base salary target of $827,500.

The Committee targets the total amount of compensation payable to our NEOs at or close to the median compensation level in the competitive market by setting the target amount of each element of compensation at or near the median level of compensation in the competitive market. Because it believes superior performance should be rewarded, the Committee provides our NEOs with the opportunity to earn total compensation in the 75th percentile (or higher) of the competitive market if performance significantly exceeds target results. Conversely, if Company or individual performance is substantially below target or planned results, the Committee believes NEOs should receive substantially less than the median level of total compensation in the competitive market (i.e., in the bottom quartile). The total amount of compensation that the Committee targeted as payable to each of our NEOs for 2014 was reasonably competitive with the median level of compensation in the NEO Peer Group and the Survey Data, except for Mr. Fitch who is paid above this range due to his substantial experience and the importance of his skill set to our strategic objectives. Certain compensation elements for Mr. Restrepo, such as base salary, retirement benefits, employee benefits and executive perquisites, are subject to the terms of his employment agreement. (See “Agreements with Named Executive Officers—Restrepo Employment Agreement” on page 62 of this Proxy Statement.)

The Committee also uses the compensation data disclosed in the proxy statements of members of the NEO Peer Group to conduct pay for performance comparisons that help it (i) understand the expectations of companies within the NEO Peer Group regarding incentive payouts and (ii) evaluate our executive compensation program and practices. The Committee also uses the Survey Data, in combination with information for the NEO Peer Group, to assess competitive pay levels and evaluate our executive compensation program and practices.

Use of Tally Sheets

The Committee uses tally sheets in its annual review of NEO compensation to review total compensation and each element of compensation provided to our NEOs. The tally sheets used by the Committee in its review of NEO compensation for 2014: (i) listed each individual element of compensation along with the amount earned in each category for 2011, 2012 and 2013; (ii) listed the target and maximum amounts of incentive compensation payable for 2013; and (iii) summarized the current value of employee benefits and perquisites. The tally sheets provide a useful perspective on the total value of NEO compensation and show how total compensation changes from year to year. The Committee also used tally sheets to evaluate each NEO’s total compensation in 2015.

Executive Compensation Program Elements

We believe that the mix of elements in our executive compensation program supports its objectives and provides appropriate reward opportunities. Each of these elements is discussed separately below, other than employee benefits which we offer to our NEOs on the same basis as all of our other employees and certain additional long-term disability benefits provided to Mr. Restrepo pursuant to his employment agreement in the event he is terminated by reason of disability. (See “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control—Restrepo Employment Agreement—Disability” on page 65 of this Proxy Statement.)

The Company applies the following principles in designing our executive compensation program to achieve the objectives of our executive compensation program:

The Company does not have a prescribed mix between cash and non-cash compensation and short- and long-term compensation;


The Company targets each element of executive compensation to approximate the median level of our competitive market so that total compensation is also positioned at median levels;


Neither the Committee nor the CEO considers the other elements of compensation available to NEOs, such as salary increases, annual bonuses, option gains and equity ownership, when setting any one element; and

AUDIT COMMITTEE MATTERS

Awards made in prior years or in other parts of our compensation program have not influenced the opportunities or payments made available in the current year.

Some of our NEOs’ compensation is governed by the terms of specific agreements between the NEO and the Company. (See “—Contractual Arrangements with Named Executive Officers” beginning on page 50 of this Proxy Statement.)

The following chart shows the elements of our executive compensation program for 2014 (except for perquisites, which are minimal in nature).

LOGO

*

In 2014 and 2015, all of the NEOs were granted 20% of their total long-term incentive opportunity in the form of stock options, 65% in the form of target PAUs and 15% in the form of restricted common shares.

**

These Company performance measures applied to each of the NEOs participating in the LBP in 2014 other than Ms. Buss. For Ms. Buss, Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio, return on equity and Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio applied to one half of her 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunity and Adjusted specialty insurance combined ratio, specialty insurance rate change and the Company’s return on equity applied to the other half of her 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunity.

Base Salary

Base Salary Adjustment Process

The Committee believes that in order for the Company to attract and retain the caliber of executives it needs to achieve both short- and long-term success it is critical for the Company to provide the NEOs with base salaries competitive with those provided to executives in our competitive market with similar skills, competencies, experience and levels of responsibility. Accordingly, the Committee may adjust the amount of an NEO’s base salary based on the median level of base salary for the NEO in our competitive market or to reflect a change in the NEO’s scope of responsibility or unique skills or expertise. These adjustments are subject to an aggregate base salary merit increase budget set by the Company based on our anticipated cost structure.

2014 Base Salaries of NEOs

The Committee set the 2014 base salaries of the NEOs in March 2014 as follows. The adjustments were based on: (i) an evaluation of each individual’s performance; (ii) increases in the median base salaries for individuals in similar roles at peer companies and other insurers comparable in size to the State Auto Group; and (iii) the Company’s overall merit increase budget and policies.

Named Executive Officer

  2013 Base Salary
($)		   2014 Base Salary
($)		   Increase (%) 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   803,400     827,502     2.9  

Steven E. English

   438,000     450,000     2.7  

Clyde H. Fitch

   350,000     360,000     2.9  

James A. Yano

   350,000     360,000     2.9  

Jessica E. Buss

   365,000     375,000     2.7  

2015 Base Salaries of NEOs

The Committee set the 2015 base salaries of the NEOs in March 2015 as follows. The adjustments were based on: (i) an evaluation of each individual’s performance; (ii) increases in the median base salaries for individuals in similar roles at peer companies and other insurers comparable in size to the State Auto Group; and (iii) the Company’s overall merit increase budget and policies. In addition, Ms. Buss’ increase was designed to move her compensation closer to the 75th percentile of the competitive market for similar executives to reward her for the results of her business unit and her strategic value to the Company.

Named Executive Officer

  2014 Base Salary
($)		   2015 Base Salary
($)		   Increase (%) 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   827,502    $852,327     3.0  

Steven E. English

   450,000    $465,000     3.3  

Clyde H. Fitch

   360,000    $370,000     2.8  

James A. Yano

   360,000    $371,000     3.1  

Jessica E. Buss

   375,000    $440,000     17.3  

Short-Term Incentive Compensation

The LBP—the short-term incentive plan in which our NEOs participate—is intended to provide personal liquidity to our NEOs, focus our NEOs on achieving our short-term strategic objectives and balance the focus of our long-term incentive plans. The following table shows the amount of short-term cash incentive compensation paid to each NEO for 2014 under the LBP. Total bonuses for the NEOs were above target.

Named Executive Officer

  Company
Performance
LBP Bonus
($)		   Individual
Performance
LBP
Bonus ($)		   Total
Short-
Term
Bonus ($)		   Total
Short-Term
Bonus (%)(1)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

  $725,885    $82,750    $808,635     122  

Steven E. English

  $320,896    $200,813    $521,708     155  

Clyde H. Fitch

  $256,716    $160,650    $417,366     155  

James A. Yano

  $188,258    $124,740    $312,998     158  

Jessica E. Buss

  $228,504    $111,375    $339,879     165  

(1)

Expressed as a percentage of “target” where target is set at 100%.

Leadership Bonus Plan Bonuses

Basis for LBP Bonuses

The LBP is an annual cash incentive program for our executives. For our NEOs, the LBP consists of two components—a Company performance component and an individual performance component. For 2014, the Committee (i) maintained the percentages of the LBP target bonus opportunity based on Company performance relative to annual plan targets and individual performance at 75% and 25%, respectively, for Mr. Restrepo, (ii) reduced the percentage of the LBP target bonus opportunity based on Company performance relative to annual plan targets to 70% for Ms. Buss and 65% for Messrs. English, Fitch and Yano and (iii) increased the percentage of the LBP target bonus opportunity based on individual performance to 30% for Ms. Buss and 35% for Messrs. English, Fitch and Yano. The Committee made these adjustments to enhance the emphasis of the LBP for our non-CEO NEOs during the CEO transition period on (i) teamwork among our non-CEO NEOs and (ii) the individual responsibilities of our non-CEO NEOs for corporate initiatives. The Committee made smaller adjustments to the allocation of Ms. Buss’s LBP target bonus opportunity because, unlike our other NEOs, a portion of her LBP bonus is subject to the achievement of performance measures relating to her business unit. The Committee maintained the allocation of Mr. Restrepo’s LBP target bonus opportunity because it believed the emphasis of such allocation on the Company’s results and business plan remained appropriate for our CEO. The Committee believes that all of these allocations appropriately focus our NEOs on attaining objective, quantitative financial results based on the Company’s results and business plan, while also providing for the recognition of individual achievements and strategically important non-financial outcomes.

LBP Award Process

The Committee typically selects the performance measures for the Company performance component of the LBP for each NEO, establishes the threshold, target and maximum performance goals for each performance measure and determines the amounts payable to each NEO upon satisfaction of the threshold, target and maximum performance goals at the beginning of each year. At the end of the year, management provides the Committee with the audited financial results achieved by the Company for each performance measure selected by the Committee. Based on this information, the Committee certifies the extent to which the performance goals were achieved and determines the amount of the Company performance bonus payable to each NEO. In 2014, the Committee deviated from this approach by approving adjustments (i) in May 2014 to the allocation of the NEOs’ target bonus opportunities between the Company performance component and the individual performance component and (ii) in August 2014 to the LBP Combined Ratio, Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio and specialty insurance combined ratio performance measures selected for the Company performance component of the LBP. These adjustments excluded from the LBP Combined Ratio, Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio, and specialty

insurance combined ratio performance measures $129.7 million in charges related to reserve strengthening for our terminated RED program business and also excluded from the LBP Combined Ratio performance measure $10.6 million in information technology reorganization-related severance expenses and vendor fees. These performance measures, as adjusted, are referred to in this Proxy Statement as Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio, Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio and Adjusted specialty insurance combined ratio. The Committee approved these adjustments because these charges, expenses and fees were not anticipated when it originally selected and established the 2014 performance measures for the Company performance component of the LBP. The Committee believed that the adjustments were appropriate to preserve the 2014 bonus opportunities of the LBP participants, consistent with the objectives of our short-term incentive compensation program and in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. As a result of these adjustments, the portion of the Company performance bonus earned by the NEOs for 2014 that was attributable to the Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio, Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio and Adjusted specialty insurance combined ratio performance measures does not constitute “qualified performance-based compensation” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

At the beginning of each year, the Committee (with input from the Board of Directors and Compensation Committee of State Auto Mutual) and the CEO establish the performance goals for the individual performance component of the LBP for the CEO and the other NEOs, respectively, and allocate a specific weight to each of the individual performance goals that they establish. The individual performance goals relate to specific strategic and business objectives relevant to each NEO’s area of responsibility and, as a result, the individual performance goals are unique for each NEO. At the end of the year, the Committee (with input from the Board of Directors and Compensation Committee of State Auto Mutual), for the CEO, and the CEO, for the other NEOs, evaluate the satisfaction of the individual performance goals by designating the NEO’s performance for each individual performance goal into one of the following categories: (i) does not meet; (ii) somewhat meets; (iii) meets; (iv) somewhat exceeds; and (v) exceeds. The Committee and the CEO then determine, based on their evaluation of the satisfaction of the individual performance goals, whether the NEO’s overall performance satisfied the threshold, target or maximum performance levels applicable to the individual performance component of the LBP and, therefore, merits the award of an individual performance bonus. The Committee retains full positive and negative discretion to adjust awards made under the individual performance component of the LBP.

LBP Bonus—2014 Company Performance Component

The following table shows the threshold, target and maximum amounts of 2014 Company performance LBP bonuses, both as a percentage of the NEO’s annual base salary and as a dollar amount, for each of the NEOs based on the potential achievement of the Company’s performance goals.

   Company Performance
Threshold		   Company Performance
Target		   Company Performance
Maximum		 

Named Executive Officer

  % of
Salary		   Dollar
Amount		   % of
Salary		   Dollar
Amount		   % of
Salary		   Dollar
Amount		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   6.0     49,650     60.0     496,501     120.0     993,002  

Steven E. English

   4.875     21,938     48.75     219,375     97.5     438,750  

Clyde H. Fitch

   4.875     17,550     48.75     175,500     97.5     351,000  

James A. Yano

   3.575     12,870     35.75     128,700     71.5     257,400  

Jessica E. Buss

   3.85     14,438     38.5     144,375     77.0     288,750  

The Committee selected Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio, return on equity and Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio as the performance measures for the Company performance component of the LBP for each of the NEOs participating in the LBP in 2014 other than Ms. Buss. For Ms. Buss, the Committee selected (i) Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio, return on equity and Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio as the performance measures applicable to one half of her 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunity and (ii) Adjusted specialty insurance combined ratio, specialty insurance rate change and the Company’s return on equity as the performance measures applicable to the other half of her 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunity.

The Committee selected these performance measures for our NEOs because it believes they: (i) align the individual compensation of our executives with the achievement of the strategic objectives of the State Auto Group; (ii) are among the most important drivers of a long-term increase in the price of our Common Shares; and (iii) reward our NEOs for performance or results that are within their control or subject to their influence. The Committee believes the additional performance measures it selected for Ms. Buss serve the additional purpose of focusing her on the performance of the operating segments for which she is responsible.

•

“LBP Combined Ratio” or “combined ratio” is a measure of the State Auto Group’s underwriting profitability and is equal to the sum of (i) the State Auto Group’s loss and loss adjustment expense ratio (i.e., losses and loss expenses as a percentage of net earned premium) and (ii) the State Auto Group’s expense ratio (i.e., underwriting expenses and miscellaneous expenses offset by miscellaneous income), in each case based upon statutory accounting principles. The LBP Combined Ratio includes positive or negative catastrophe development from the prior year. LBP Combined Ratio is expressed as a percentage and a LBP Combined Ratio of less than 100% indicates underwriting profitability. “Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio” is the LBP Combined Ratio excluding, for 2014, the $10.6 million in information technology reorganization-related severance expenses and vendor fees and the $129.7 million in charges related to reserve strengthening for our terminated RED program business.

“Return on equity” is the percentage determined by dividing the Company’s net income by the Company’s average shareholders’ equity, based upon generally accepted accounting principles.

“Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio” is a measure for all lines of business of the State Auto Group of the total losses and loss adjustment expenses (“LAE”) incurred as a percentage of the net earned premium. LAE are comprised of the allocated loss adjustment expenses (“ALAE”), or the costs that can be related to a specific claim, for all of the State Auto Group’s lines of business and the unallocated loss adjustment expenses (“ULAE”), or the costs incurred in the process of settling claims that cannot be attributed to a specific claim, in each case based upon statutory accounting principles. “Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio” is the Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio excluding the impact of charges related to reserve strengthening for our terminated RED program business.

•

“Specialty insurance combined ratio” for the State Auto Group’s specialty insurance segment is a measure of the profitability of the State Auto Group’s specialty insurance segment and is equal to the sum of (i) the State Auto Group’s specialty insurance segment’s loss and loss adjustment expense ratio (i.e., losses and loss expenses as a percentage of net earned premium) and (ii) the State Auto Group’s specialty insurance segment’s expense ratio (i.e., underwriting expenses and miscellaneous expenses offset by miscellaneous income), in each case based upon statutory accounting principles. Specialty insurance combined ratio is expressed as a percentage and a ratio of less than 100% indicates underwriting profitability. “Adjusted specialty insurance combined ratio” is equal to the Specialty insurance combined ratio excluding the impact of charges related to reserve strengthening for our terminated RED program business.

“Specialty insurance rate change” is a measure for all lines of business of the State Auto Group’s specialty insurance segment of the percentage change in premium rate charged for the current year compared to the premium rate charged for the prior year. For new products, a benchmark is substituted for the premium rate charged for the prior year.

The following table shows the threshold, target and maximum payout percentages and performance goals established for each performance measure applicable to our NEOs’ 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunities:

   Adjusted LBP
Combined Ratio		   Return on Equity   Adjusted
Non-Catastrophe  Loss
Ratio		 
  Payout
as (%)
of Target		   Performance
Goal
(%)		   Payout
as (%)
of Target		   Performance
Goal
(%)		   Payout
as (%)
of Target		   Performance
Goal
(%)		 

Threshold

   10     104.0     10     2.4     10     64.0  

Target

   100     99.0     100     9.0     100     60.5  

Maximum

   200     95.0     200     13.8     200     57.5  

The following table shows the threshold, target and maximum payout percentages and performance goals established for each of the additional performance measures applicable to Ms. Buss’s 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunity:

   Adjusted
Specialty Insurance
Combined Ratio		   Return on Equity   Specialty Insurance
Rate Change		 
  Payout
as (%)
of Target		   Performance
Goal
(%)		   Payout
as (%)
of Target		   Performance
Goal
(%)		   Payout
as (%)
of Target		   Performance
Goal
(%)		 

Threshold

   10     98.9     10     2.4     10     -3.3  

Target

   100     94.7     100     9.0     100     .7  

Maximum

   200     87.4     200     13.8     200     7.7  

Target performance is equal to the goal for the financial measure set forth in the 2014 business plan presented by management and approved by the Board in March 2014 following review and discussion of the business plan with the Board of Directors of State Auto Mutual. The Committee believes that target performance is reasonable to attain but includes an element of “stretch” performance. Maximum performance goals are intended to reflect superior performance and, although possible, may be extremely difficult to attain. Threshold performance, which the Committee views as a minimally acceptable level of performance, is the lowest level of performance meriting any form of financial reward. The Committee recognizes that target performance may not be attained and believes that providing for payments to be made for threshold performance mitigates the incentive for NEOs and others to take excessive risks to achieve the target level of performance. The Committee retains the power to reduce, but not increase, the amount of any Company performance bonus payable to an NEO subject to Section 162(m) of the Code. (See “—Tax Deductibility of Executive Compensation” on page 50 of this Proxy Statement.)

The following table shows (i) the result achieved for each Company performance measure applicable to our NEOs’ 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunities, (ii) the percentage payout for that result relative to the target payout for that performance measure, (iii) the weight of each such performance measure within the Company performance component of LBP and (iv) the value of the actual payout for the result achieved as a percentage of the NEO’s target bonus for the Company performance component of the LBP. The Committee assigned each of the performance measures an equal weight to balance profitability, shareholder return and growth.

Performance Measure

  2014
Result		   % of Target
Payout
for Result		   Weight   Payout Value
(% of Target)		 

Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio(1)

   97.2     154.3     .3333     51.4  

Return on Equity

   13     190     .3333     63.3  

Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio(1)

   60.7     94.3     .3334     31.4  

Adjusted Specialty Insurance Combined Ratio (Ms. Buss)

   89.1     193.0     .1667     32.2  

Specialty Insurance Rate Change (Ms. Buss)

   4.0     123.0     .1667     20.5  

(1)

For Ms. Buss, the weight of this performance measure for her 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunity was .1667.

LBP Bonus—2014 Individual Performance Component

The following table shows the 2014 threshold, target and maximum payouts, both as a percentage of salary and as a dollar amount, for each of the NEOs assuming attainment of each respective level of the individual performance goals.

Named Executive Officer

  Individual Performance
Bonus Threshold		   Individual Performance
Bonus Target		   Individual Performance
Bonus Maximum		 
  % of
Salary		   Dollar
Amount		   % of
Salary		   Dollar
Amount		   % of
Salary		   Dollar
Amount		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   2     16,550     20     165,500     40     331,000  

Steven E. English

   2.625     11,813     26.25     118,125     52.5     236,250  

Clyde H. Fitch

   2.625     9,450     26.25     94,500     52.5     189,000  

James A. Yano

   1.925     6,930     19.25     69,300     38.5     138,600  

Jessica E. Buss

   1.65     6,188     16.5     61,875     33     123,750  

The following table shows (i) the amount earned by each NEO for the individual performance component of the LBP for 2014, (ii) the value of the amount earned as a percentage of the NEO’s 2014 target bonus for the individual performance component of the LBP, (iii) a description of each individual performance goal set for each NEO for 2014 and (iv) the weight of each performance goal within the individual performance component of LBP:

Named

Executive

Officer

  2014
Individual
Performance
LBP Bonus
($)		   

Payout
Value (%
of Target)

   

Performance Goal

  

Weight
(%)

 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   82,750     50    

1. IT Sourcing Initiative(1)

   20  
      

2. Pricing(1)

   15  
      

3. Leadership Development(1)

   15  
      

4. Cash Budget(1)

   10  
      

5. Regulatory Exam(1)

   10  
      

6. Claim Performance(1)

   10  
      

7. Risk Management(1)

   10  
      

8. Customer Experience(1)

   10  

Steven E. English

   200,183     170    

1. Capital Management(1)

   40  
      

2. Procurement

   25  
      

3. Finance Transformation(1)

   25  
      

4. Personal Development(1)

   10  

Clyde H. Fitch

   160,650     170    

1. Field Management: Business, Personal, Specialty(1)

   40  
      

2. Sales Management(1)

   30  
      

3. Associate Development(1)

   15  
      

4. Industry Regulatory Community(1)

   15  

James A. Yano

   124,740     180    

1. Corporate Legal: Manage Corporate Legal to provide sound legal advice to the executive team, operational units and boards of directors.

   40  
      

2. Board Relations: Continue to support and promote the executive team’s relationship with the Board and continue effective coordination of Board and committee meetings.

   35  
      

3. Succession Planning(1)

   10  
      

4. Risk(1)

   10  
      

5. Engagement(1)

   5  

Jessica E. Buss

   111,375     180    

1. Specialty Insurance Pricing(1)

   20  
      

2. Specialty Cash Budget(1)

   10  
      

3. Profitable Growth(1)

   20  
      

4. Portal Implementation(1)

   10  
      

5. Integration(1)

   15  
      

6. Business Development(1)

   10  
      

7. Integration and Assimilation into State Auto(1)

   15  

(1)

We are not disclosing a more specific description of this performance goal because doing so would reveal confidential information that we do not disclose to the public, and we believe that disclosure of this information would cause us competitive harm.

For 2014, the Committee awarded Mr. Restrepo an individual performance bonus for continuing to achieve progress in our Homeowners’ and Specialty lines of business, continuing to exceed goals in claims, agent and customer experience, and improving the Company’s information technology strategy and infrastructure and leadership, development and associate engagement. The size of the bonus reflected the Committee’s desire for further improvements in business insurance and for overall capital management to achieve even stronger results.

Mr. Restrepo recommended, and the Committee approved, individual performance bonuses for the other NEOs based primarily on the following accomplishments during 2014:

Mr. English somewhat exceeded target performance by evaluating and implementing a number of innovative reinsurance and capital solutions following the completion of the homeowner remediation initiative, establishing appropriate reserves for the RED program business in runoff, leading the evaluation and reversal of the allowance for deferred tax assets, maintaining effective communications with rating agencies and regulators, and actively involving the Board in all capital management strategies and actions.

Mr. Fitch somewhat exceeded target performance by improving standard lines profitability, strengthening agency relationships, improving workers compensation marketing, focusing new business initiatives on larger accounts, providing superior service to independent agents, and managing staffing levels.

Mr. Yano exceeded target performance by delivering responsive and high quality legal advice, providing Board guidance on how to best restructure and right size the Board, enhancing our risk management capability, and providing superior counsel to the CEO and Boards.

Ms. Buss exceeded target performance by achieving financial goals for profit, production and pricing, leading and integrating the acquisition of Partners General, surpassing plan for E&S property despite a challenging competitive environment, exceeding expectations and industry performance for workers compensation, achieving scale in the program line, broadening wholesale distribution, and building out a new E&S systems platform.

LBP Bonus Opportunities—2015 Company and Individual Performance Bonuses

On March 5, 2015, the Committee set the total 2015 LBP bonus opportunities for our NEOs, including the Company performance and individual performance components of the LBP. The Committee selected LBP Combined Ratio, return on equity and Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio as the performance measures for the 2015 Company performance component of the LBP and assigned each such performance measure the same weight as in 2014. The Committee also set the threshold, target and maximum payout percentages for the Company performance and individual performance components of the LBP for 2015, including a range of payout levels between threshold and maximum. We believe that the disclosure of the specific performance measures for the Company performance and individual performance components of the LBP and the range of awards related to the achievement of such measures are reflective of our 2015 business plan, and as such constitute confidential information. We believe that the disclosure of this information in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis would cause us competitive harm. The Committee believes that the target performance goals are difficult but attainable. For 2013 and 2014, the payout on the Company performance goals was 57.5% and 146.2%, respectively, of the target LBP bonus (where the target percentage equals 100%) for all of our NEOs except for Ms. Buss, whose payout on the Company performance goals under the LBP for 2013 and 2014 was 135.6% and 157.5%, respectively, of her target LBP bonus and Mr. Fitch, whose payout on the Company performance goals under the LBP for 2013 was 64.3% of his target LBP bonus. For 2015, the payment of an individual performance LBP bonus for our NEOs, if any, will be determined by the Committee and the CEO at the end of the Company’s 2015 fiscal year on the same basis as in 2014.

Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation

The Committee awards long-term incentive compensation to our NEOs in the form of stock options and restricted common shares under the 2009 Equity Plan and PAUs under the LTIP. The Committee targets the long-term incentive compensation awards to the NEOs at the median of long-term incentive compensation awards in our competitive market. For 2014 and 2015, the Committee provided 20% of each NEO’s total long-term incentive compensation opportunity in the form of stock options, 65% in the form of target PAUs and 15% in the form of restricted common shares.

Stock Options

Basis for Stock Option Awards

We believe that issuing stock options to our executives (i) encourages business behaviors that drive appreciation in the price of our Common Shares over the long-term because the stock options we award have no value unless the price of the underlying Common Shares increases from the date of grant and (ii) helps align the interests of our executives who hold stock options, including our NEOs, with the interests of our shareholders. Stock options also represent a significant element of the compensation paid to executives at many peer companies that we compete with for executive talent and build appropriate levels of Common Share ownership among our executive team. The Company has not and will not reprice or replace underwater stock options without first obtaining shareholder approval.

Stock Option Award Process

In 2014 and 2015, the Committee granted stock options to our NEOs representing the number of Common Shares set forth in the table below. Each grant of options consisted of non-qualified stock options with a ten-year exercise period, a three-year graduated vesting schedule (i.e., one third of the total options granted vests on each anniversary of the grant date for three years) and an option exercise price equal to the closing price of our Common Shares on the grant date.

Named Executive Officer

  2014
Stock
Option
Awards
(# of
Common
Shares)		   Exercise
Price ($)		   2015
Stock
Option
Awards
(# of
Common
Shares)		   Exercise
Price ($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   37,432     21.23     33,472     22.72  

Steven E. English

   10,905     21.23     10,435     22.72  

Clyde H. Fitch

   7,561     21.23     6,747     22.72  

James A. Yano

   7,561     21.23     6,765     22.72  

Jessica E. Buss

   7,876     21.23     9,257     22.72  

The Committee grants stock options each year at the same time as other annual awards are determined, based on the CEO’s recommendations to the Committee, which the CEO determines using competitive market data. Although the Committee retains the discretion to set the terms of any options granted, including the number of options granted to any optionee, the Committee did not exercise such discretion for the 2014 or 2015 stock option grants and instead implemented the CEO’s recommendations.

The Committee determined the number of stock options granted by multiplying (i) the average daily closing price of our Common Shares for the prior fiscal year (ii) by a “Black-Scholes” factor. The “Black-Scholes” factor is a financial model used to determine the current value of stock options and was provided to the Company by Pay Governance, LLC. Pay Governance, LLC advised the Committee that this method, which is consistent with the practice the Committee used in prior years, provides stability in option grants, is similar to the practices of other companies and prevents significant fluctuation in the number of options granted that may be caused by short-term swings in stock price associated with focusing on the closing stock price for a particular day.

Restricted Common Shares

Basis for Restricted Common Share Awards

We believe that issuing restricted common shares to our executives (i) reduces our usage of Common Shares under our equity compensation plans, (ii) aligns the interests of the NEOs with the interests of our shareholders and (iii) encourages associate retention. Restricted stock also represents a significant element of the compensation paid to executives at many peer companies that we compete with for executive talent and builds appropriate levels of Common Share ownership among our executive team.

Restricted Common Share Award Process

In 2014 and 2015, the Committee granted restricted common shares to our NEOs representing the number of Common Shares set forth in the table below. These restricted common shares vest on the third anniversary of the grant date.

Named Executive Officer

  2014 Restricted
Common  Share Awards
(# of Common Shares)		   2015 Restricted
Common  Share Awards
(# of Common Shares)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   8,826     7,924  

Steven E. English

   2,572     2,471  

Clyde H. Fitch

   1,783     1,597  

James A. Yano

   1,783     1,602  

Jessica E. Buss

   1,857     2,192  

The Committee grants restricted common shares each year at the same time as other annual awards are determined, based on the CEO’s recommendations to the Committee, which the CEO determines using competitive market data. Although the Committee retains the discretion to set the terms of any restricted common shares granted, including the number of restricted common shares granted, the Committee did not exercise such discretion for the 2014 or 2015 restricted common share grants and instead implemented the CEO’s recommendations.

The Committee determined the number of restricted common shares granted by dividing the portion of the NEO’s target long-term incentive opportunity awarded in restricted common shares by the sum of (i) the average daily trading price of our Common Shares during the immediately preceding year and (ii) the estimated value of three years of anticipated cash dividends. Pay Governance, LLC advised the Committee that this method, which is consistent with the practice the Committee used in prior years, provides stability in restricted common share grants, is similar to the practices of other companies and prevents significant fluctuation in the number of restricted common shares granted that may be caused by short-term swings in stock price associated with focusing on the closing stock price for a particular day.

Performance Award Units

Basis for PAU Awards

PAUs reward participants for achieving sustained financial results that we believe should increase the price of our Common Shares over the long term. The Committee also believes that PAUs balance the focus of our annual operating plan by rewarding participants for our financial results relative to the results of other property and casualty insurers, which is consistent with our executive compensation program objective to provide compensation relative to our performance as compared to the performance of our peers. In addition, PAUs minimize shareholder dilution as they are paid in cash.

PAU Award Process

PAUs are awarded annually by the Committee to the NEOs and are paid in cash at the end of a three-year performance period. The amount payable at the end of the performance period is determined by multiplying the number of PAUs by the “value” of the PAU at the end of the performance period. PAUs are granted with a target value of $1.00, although the final value of each PAU can range from $0.00 to $2.00 depending on our performance. The final value of a PAU depends on the State Auto Group’s performance relative to a peer group of other property and casualty insurers during the performance period (the “LTIP Peer Group”). The peer-comparison approach reduces the subjectivity involved in setting performance goals for a three-year period.

PAUs are valued based on the State Auto Group’s achievement of performance goals selected by the Committee compared against the results of the LTIP Peer Group during the three-year period. Each goal has

threshold, target and maximum levels of performance. The target level for each performance measure is achieved if the State Auto Group’s performance equals the median level of performance of the companies in the LTIP Peer Group for such performance measure. The maximum level for each performance measure is achieved if the State Auto Group performs at or above the 80th percentile of the LTIP Peer Group. The threshold level of performance is achieved if the State Auto Group performs at the 20th percentile. No amount is payable for a performance measure if the State Auto Group performs below the 20th percentile.

For example, if at the end of the 2014–2016 performance period there are 60 insurance companies in the LTIP Peer Group, and if such companies are ranked 1 – 60 (best to worst) in average statutory combined ratio, each NEO will receive a target award if the State Auto Group’s three-year average statutory combined ratio is between the 30/31st ranked companies. A maximum award will be received if our three-year average statutory combined ratio equals or exceeds the 12th ranked company (equal to the group’s 80th percentile). Finally, a threshold award will be received if our three-year statutory combined ratio equals the 48th ranked company (or the group’s 20th percentile). The same comparison is performed for the other performance measures, with the results equally weighted to determine the final PAU value awarded to each NEO.

PAU Awards—2012-2014 Performance Period

PAUs awarded to each of the NEOs other than Ms. Buss for the 2012-2014 performance period are valued based on the achievement of three equally-weighted performance measures: (i) statutory combined ratio for the State Auto Group; (ii) the State Auto Group’s net written premium growth (excluding the impact of the quota share reinsurance agreement entered into by the State Auto Group on December 31, 2011 relating to its homeowners book of business (the “Quota Share Agreement”)); and (iii) the State Auto Group’s surplus growth (excluding the impact of the Quota Share Agreement). PAUs awarded to Ms. Buss for the 2012-2014 performance period are valued based on the achievement of three equally-weighted performance measures: (i) combined ratio for our Specialty Group; (ii) direct written premium growth for our Specialty Group; and (iii) surplus growth for our Specialty Group.

We have not determined the value of the PAUs awarded for the 2012-2014 performance period because the final LTIP Peer Group data for the 2012-2014 performance period has not been released as of the date of this Proxy Statement. However, based on preliminary performance information for the 2012-2014 performance period, we currently expect that the PAUs awarded for the 2012-2014 performance period will be valued below target for all of the NEOs, except for Ms. Buss. We currently expect that the PAUs awarded to Ms. Buss for the 2012-2014 performance period will be valued significantly above target. We will determine the value of the PAUs awarded to our NEOs for the 2012-2014 performance period (and pay such amount to our NEOs) in May 2015 after the final LTIP Peer Group data for the 2012-2014 performance period is released.

PAU Awards—2014

PAUs awarded to each of the NEOs for (except for Ms. Buss) the 2014-2016 performance period are valued based on the achievement of target results for three equally-weighted performance measures: (i) statutory combined ratio for the State Auto Group; (ii) the State Auto Group’s net written premium growth (excluding the impact of the Quota Share Agreement); and (iii) the State Auto Group’s surplus growth (excluding the impact of the Quota Share Agreement). PAUs awarded to Ms. Buss for the 2014-2016 performance period are valued based on the achievement of three equally-weighted performance measures: (i) combined ratio for our Specialty Group; (ii) direct written premium growth for our Specialty Group; and (iii) surplus growth for the State Auto Group (excluding the impact of the Quota Share Agreement). The performance measures selected by the Committee focus on our ability to appropriately price and underwrite business, control expenses, develop new products and services, invest in assets that best balance risks and rewards and enter new markets. They also assess long-term profitability and the capital we need to underwrite future business. We believe sustained, high levels of performance in each of these areas should create value for our shareholders.

The LTIP Peer Group used to determine our achievement of (i) the surplus growth performance measure applicable to PAUs awarded to our NEOs in 2014 and (ii) the net written premium growth and direct, statutory combined ratio performance measures applicable to PAUs awarded to all of our NEOs in 2014 except for Ms. Buss initially consisted of 60 insurance companies included in the A.M. Best Total U.S. P&C Agency Companies Composite with net written premiums ranging from $0.5 billion to $5.0 billion. The LTIP Peer Group used to determine our achievement of the performance measures applicable to PAUs awarded to Ms. Buss in 2014 initially consisted of 45 surplus lines peers with gross written premiums ranging from $100 million to $500 million and 33 workers compensation peers with gross written premiums ranging from $50 million to $200 million. For Ms. Buss, the results of the surplus lines group of our Specialty Group will be compared against the results of the surplus lines peers and the results of the workers compensation group of our Specialty Group will be compared against the results of the workers compensation peers. The total performance of the Specialty Group will be determined by weighting the results of its surplus lines and workers compensation groups based on their respective gross written premium contribution.

For the 2014-2016 performance period, our NEOs received PAUs in the number and with the target, threshold and maximum values described below:

Named Executive Officer

  2014 Target
Units(#)		   Target Award
Value($)		   Threshold Award
Value($)(1)		   Maximum Award
Value($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo Jr.

   753,027     753,027     301,211     1,506,054  

Steven E. English

   219,375     219,375     87,750     438,750  

Clyde H. Fitch

   152,100     152,100     60,840     304,200  

James A. Yano

   152,100     152,100     60,840     304,200  

Jessica E. Buss

   158,438     158,438     63,375     316,876  

(1)

Units have a target value equal to $1.00, a threshold value of $0.40 and a maximum value of $2.00.

PAU Awards—2015

PAUs awarded for the 2015-2017 performance period are valued based on the achievement of three equally-weighted performance measures. The Committee selected the same performance measures for the 2015-2017 performance period as it did for the 2014-2016 performance period for the reasons discussed above in “—PAU Awards—2014.” For the 2015-2017 performance period, our NEOs received PAUs in the number and with the target, threshold and maximum values described below:

Named Executive Officer

  2015 Target
Units(#)		   Target Award
Value($)(1)		   Threshold Award
Value($)(1)		   Maximum Award
Value($)(1)		 

Robert P. Restrepo Jr.

   775,618     775,618     310,247     1,551,236  

Steven E. English

   241,800     241,800     96,720     483,600  

Clyde H. Fitch

   156,325     156,325     62,530     312,650  

James A. Yano

   156,748     156,748     62,699     313,496  

Jessica E. Buss

   214,500     214,500     85,800     429,000  

(1)

Units have a target value equal to $1.00, a threshold value of $0.40 and a maximum value of $2.00.

Retirement and Deferred Compensation

Retirement Plans

We maintain a defined benefit pension plan, referred to as our “Retirement Plan,” to recognize the career contributions and service of our employees, assist in the retention of our employees and provide our employees with income continuity into retirement. We also maintain a non-qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, referred to as our “SERP,” to offset the impact of limitations imposed by tax laws on the amount of income or wages that can be considered in calculating benefits under traditional defined benefit pension plans, such as

our Retirement Plan. All of our current NEOs are eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan and SERP except for Ms. Buss. The SERP enables highly compensated officers to achieve the same percentage of salary replacement as other employees upon retirement. An NEO is automatically enrolled in the SERP when his or her annual base salary exceeds the limit that can be considered in calculating benefits under the Retirement Plan. In addition to the standard SERP, we have entered into an individual SERP agreement with Mr. Restrepo to offset the impact of the relatively shorter duration of employment available to him at our Company. Under the Retirement Plan, an employee’s period of service has a significant impact on the amount of retirement benefits they would be eligible to receive. Under the standard SERP, the amount of retirement benefits that an employee would be eligible to receive is determined solely by the employee’s actual period of service. The emphasis of our Retirement Plan and SERP on period of service may negatively affect our ability to attract a CEO who would not have the same opportunity to earn benefits under the Retirement Plan and SERP comparable to other employees with longer service periods. For this reason, the Committee approved the individual SERP agreement for Mr. Restrepo. Mr. Restrepo’s individual SERP agreement does not provide him with any additional age or service credits upon his entry into the plan. See “—Contractual Arrangements with Named Executive Officers—Employment Agreements” on page 50 of this Proxy Statement and “Retirement Plans” on page 59 of this Proxy Statement for more information regarding our retirement plans.

Defined Contribution Plan/401(k) Plan

We maintain a defined contribution plan intended to be a qualified plan under Sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Code that we refer to as our “Retirement Savings Plan” or “RSP.” The RSP is intended to help ensure the long-term financial stability of our employees. Participation in the RSP is available on the same terms to all of our employees, including our NEOs. Each participant can elect to contribute from 1% to 50% of his or her base salary to the RSP. The Company may make a discretionary matching contribution of 100% of each participant’s RSP contributions for the first 1% of base salary, plus 50% of each participant’s RSP contribution between 2% and 6% of base salary, subject to limits imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. In 2010, all of our employees hired before January 1, 2010, including our NEOs, made an election to either (i) continue participating in the Retirement Plan and RSP or (ii) cease participating in the Retirement Plan as of June 30, 2010 in favor of participating in an expanded benefit under the RSP beginning on July 1, 2010, under which the Company annually contributes to the RSP an amount equal to 5% of their annual base salary until the termination of their employment with the Company. If an employee elected to participate in the expanded RSP benefit, they would continue to be eligible to receive upon retirement their accrued benefit under the Retirement Plan as of June 30, 2010. See “Deferred Compensation Plans—Defined Contribution Plan/401(k) Plan” on page 60 of this Proxy Statement for more information regarding the RSP.

Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan/Supplemental 401(k) Plan

We maintain a non-qualified, unfunded deferred compensation plan for eligible key employees, which we refer to as our “Shadow Plan.” Non-qualified plans provide highly compensated employees with the same retirement savings opportunities, on a relative basis, as other employees. Participants in non-qualified plans become unsecured creditors and incur the credit risk associated with that status. Employees eligible to participate in the Shadow Plan include those who are precluded by regulatory limitations from contributing a full 6% of salary to the RSP or who may choose to defer a portion of their salary beyond the amount matched by the RSP. Each employee who is eligible to participate in the Shadow Plan is credited annually with his or her allocable share of Company matching contributions on the same basis that contributions are matched under the RSP, provided that no more than 6% of any employee’s base salary is subject to being matched in the aggregate under the RSP and the Shadow Plan. See “Deferred Compensation Plans—Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan/Supplemental 401(k) Plan” on page 61 of this Proxy Statement for more information regarding the Shadow Plan.

Executive Perquisites and Other Compensation

We provide our executive officers certain minimal perquisites not tied to individual or Company performance. We believe these benefits are well below the typical practices of companies of comparable size, are

highly valued by recipients, have limited cost and are part of a competitive reward program that helps us attract and retain the best executives.

In 2014, a third party service provider that administers certain payments made on behalf of the Company to our NEOs inadvertently failed to withhold taxes on a payment it issued to Ms. Buss. We determined that seeking repayment of this amount from Ms. Buss would be unreasonable and inappropriate because the failure to withhold was not immediately identified and solely resulted from the actions of the third party service provider. The additional compensation paid to Ms. Buss as a result of the failure to withhold is reported in the “All Other Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table.

Contractual Arrangements with Named Executive Officers

Employment Agreements

The Company enters into employment agreements to provide appropriate protection to the employee and the Company and clarity to the employee and the Company about the Company’s expectations. The Company’s only current employment agreement is with Mr. Restrepo, its Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. The Company believes that having an employment agreement in place with Mr. Restrepo ensures leadership stability and focus and assists in long-term retention. The Company also believes that continuity has a cumulative effect on the achievement of our long-term strategic and operational objectives and, therefore, also furthers the objectives of our executive compensation program.

The terms of Mr. Restrepo’s employment agreement were the result of arm’s length negotiations between the Committee and Mr. Restrepo. As is the case with most executive employment agreements, our employment agreement with Mr. Restrepo addresses separation and severance benefits in connection with the termination of his respective employment with us, either prior to or at the end of the employment term. These provisions benefit both us and the executive in that they provide a clear understanding of the rights and obligations of the parties upon events resulting in the termination of the employment relationship. The terms of the employment agreement with Mr. Restrepo, including the severance and separation benefits provided to Mr. Restrepo upon the occurrence of certain termination events, are described in detail below under “Agreements with Named Executive Officers—Restrepo Employment Agreement.”

Change of Control Agreements

Change of control agreements are part of our corporate strategy to retain our well-qualified senior executive officers, notwithstanding a potential or actual change of control of our Company. Change of control agreements also serve our shareholders’ interests by ensuring that senior executives will view any potential transaction objectively since an adverse change in their employment situation will not have adverse personal financial consequences. We entered into new change of control agreements, which we refer to as “executive agreements,” with each of our NEOs in 2014. The terms of the executive agreements with our NEOs are described in detail below under “Agreements with Named Executive Officers—Executive Agreements.” The severance and separation benefits provided to the NEOs under their respective executive agreements are described below under “Agreements with Named Executive Officers—Restrepo Employment Agreement” and “Agreements with Named Executive Officers—English, Fitch, Yano and Buss Executive Agreements.”

Tax Deductibility of Executive Compensation

Section 162(m) of the Code imposes a limit on the amount of compensation that we may deduct in any one year for our NEOs unless certain specific criteria are satisfied. “Qualified performance-based compensation,” as defined in Section 162(m) of the Code, is fully deductible if the programs are approved by shareholders and meet other requirements. Our shareholders have approved the material terms of the LBP, the 2009 Equity Plan and the LTIP as required by Section 162(m) of the Code. Accordingly, compensation paid for the attainment of Company performance-based awards under the LBP, stock options awarded under the 2009 Equity Plan and compensation paid for the attainment of the PAUs under the LTIP are intended to be deductible for federal income tax purposes

under Section 162(m) of the Code; provided, however, that the portion of the Company performance bonus earned by the NEOs for 2014 that was attributable to the Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio, Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio and Adjusted specialty insurance combined ratio performance measures performance measures does not constitute “qualified performance-based compensation” for purposes of Section 162(m) due to the adjustments made by the Committee to those performance measures in August 2014. These adjustments are described in detail above in “Short-Term Incentive Compensation—Leadership Bonus Plan Bonuses—LBP Award Process.” While we generally attempt to tax qualify our compensation programs, we also seek to maintain flexibility in compensating our executives. As a result, our Committee has not adopted a policy requiring all compensation to be deductible. For example, restricted common shares awarded under the 2009 Equity Plan and compensation paid for the attainment of individual performance-based awards under the LBP are not intended to constitute “qualified performance-based compensation” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

We have adopted stock ownership guidelines (“Ownership Guidelines”) for our Section 16 officers, including our NEOs. These Ownership Guidelines reinforce one of the objectives of our executive compensation program and primary reasons for awarding equity compensation—to build appropriate levels of Common Share ownership among our executive team. Each person subject to the Ownership Guidelines is required to acquire and maintain ownership of a designated number of Common Shares based on the person’s position with us (the “Ownership Target Amounts”). Our Stock Ownership Guidelines also require our Section 16 officers to hold the net amount of Common Shares they obtain through the exercise of stock options or vesting of restricted common shares until the later of (i) the first anniversary of the date the officer exercised the stock options or the restricted stock vested, as applicable, or (ii) the date on which the officer satisfies the Ownership Target Amounts.

Equity grants vary based on an individual’s level in the Company, our competitive market data, the scope of the NEO’s responsibility and the number of Common Shares available for issuance under our equity compensation plans. As a result, it makes sense to also vary the level of ownership we require of these individuals based on their level in the Company and the number of option grants they receive. The following Ownership Target Amount categories will remain in place until changed by the Committee:

Chairman/CEO

100,000Common Shares

Senior Vice President

15,000Common Shares

Vice President

7,000Common Shares

Executives are in compliance with the Ownership Guidelines if they meet the Ownership Target Amounts within five years of assuming the designated category of management or if they invest a minimum of 6% of their annual base salary in Company stock through a payroll deduction plan. All Common Shares directly owned by officers count toward meeting their respective Ownership Target Amounts, including unvested restricted common shares. In addition, for purposes of the Ownership Target Amounts we count as owned by officers one-third of their vested “in-the-money” stock options. The following table shows the Ownership Target Amounts for the NEOs and the number of Common Shares currently owned by the NEOs as of March 13, 2015.

Named Executive Officer

  Ownership Target
Amount for
Common Shares		   Eligible Options
Owned by NEO(1)		   Unvested
Restricted
Stock
Owned by
NEO		   Common Shares
Owned Directly
by NEO		   Total Common
Share Ownership
Toward Target		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   100,000     116,343     16,750     102,738     235,831  

Steven E. English

   15,000     32,306     5,043     12,598     49,947  

Clyde H. Fitch

   15,000     24,978     3,380     17,327     45,685  

James A. Yano

   15,000     19,852     3,385     10,951     34,188  

Jessica E. Buss

   15,000     14,076     4,049     3,688     21,813  

(1)

One-third of vested “in the money” stock options count toward the ownership level requirement. Vested options with an exercise price that is higher than the fair market value of the Company’s Common Shares

(i.e., underwater stock options) do not count towards the Ownership Guidelines. The stock options included in this table are one-third of those exercisable within 60 days of March 13, 2015 and “in the money” based on a price of $22.00, which represents the average closing priceAudit Committee Report for the Company’s Common Shares during the 30-day period ending on January 30, 2015.

Anti-Hedging Policy

Our anti-hedging policy prohibits all Company employees, including our NEOs, and members of the Board from engaging in certain hedging transactions relating to Company securities held by them, including short sales and other transactions that shift the economic consequences of ownership of Company securities to a third party (e.g., the purchase or sale of puts, calls or listed options and hedging transactions such as prepaid variable forwards, equity swaps, caps, collars and exchange funds). Our executive officers and members of the Board are also subject to a policy that prohibits them from holding Company securities in a margin account or otherwise pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan.

Summary Compensation Table for 2014

Name and Principal

Position

 Year  Salary
($)		  Bonus
($)		  Stock
Awards
($)(1)		  Option
Awards
($)(2)		  Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(3)		  Change in
Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings
($)(4)		  All Other
Compensation
($)(5)		  Total
($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

  2014    821,940    0    187,376(6)   296,836    808,635    807,578    103,442    3,025,807  

Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer

  2013    798,900    0    0    683,876    601,633    581,148    97,018    2,762,575  
  2012    780,000    0    291,247(6)   314,150    383,022    776,837    114,442    2,659,698  

Steven E. English

  2014    447,231    0    54,604(6)   86,477    521,708    269,185    20,983    1,400,188  

Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer

  2013    435,500    0    0    199,738    346,845    61,525    15,073    1,058,681  
  2012    420,192    0    0    51,783    207,840    121,112    16,152    817,079  

Clyde H. Fitch

  2014    357,692    0    37,853(6)   59,959    417,366    216,490    20,746    1,110,106  

Senior Vice President andChief Sales Officer

  2013    348,077    0    0    138,329    269,629    98,920    15,073    870,028  
  2012    340,000    0    150    38,150    241,759    105,859    16,152    742,070  

James A. Yano

  2014    357,692    0    37,853(6)   59,959    312,998    212,756    20,746    1,002,004  

Senior Vice President,

  2013    344,231    0    0    128,447    204,610    88,412    15,073    780,773  

Secretary and General
Counsel

  2012    320,000    0    150    27,618    124,153    98,301    13,308    583,530  

Jessica E. Buss

  2014    372,692    0    39,424(6)   62,457    339,879    0    159,007    973,459  

Senior Vice President,Specialty Lines

  2013    362,834    0    0    144,253    454,209    0    33,215    994,511  
  2012    353,736    0    0    30,531    385,891    0    28,652    798,810  

(1)

Except as described in other footnotes, the dollar amounts shown in this column represent the grant date fair value of Common Shares awarded to the NEOs on holidays and certain service anniversary milestones. These awards are made to all employees of the Company on the same basis and in the same amounts.

(2)

The dollar amounts shown in this column represent the aggregate grant date fair value of the stock options awarded in the fiscal year indicated. The grant date fair value of each stock option granted was calculated in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Options (“ASC Topic 718”). For a discussion of the assumptions used in the calculations, see Note 13 to our Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year endedFiscal Year Ending December 31, 2014.

2016

(3)

The amounts earned in 2014 by the NEOs with respect to the PAUs awarded in 2012 under our LTIP for the 2012-2014 performance period are not included in this column as the results for the 2012-2014 performance period applicable to such PAUs were not available as of the date of this Proxy Statement. We expect to determine the amounts payable to the NEOs with respect to such PAUs in May 2015.

For 2014 non-equity incentive plan compensation, the dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the aggregate total of the following awards earned in 2014 by each NEO under the Company performance component of the LBP and the individual performance component of the LBP:

   LBP
Company
Performance
Award ($)		   LBP
Individual
Performance
Award ($)		   Total
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
Awards ($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   725,885     82,750     808,635  

Steven E. English

   320,896     200,813     521,708  

Clyde H. Fitch

   256,716     160,650     417,366  

James A. Yano

   188,258     124,740     312,998  

Jessica E. Buss

   228,504     111,375     339,879  

For 2013 non-equity incentive plan compensation, the dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the aggregate total of the following awards earned in 2013 by each NEO under the Company performance component of the LBP, the individual performance component of the LBP and the PAUs relating to the 2011-2013 performance period:

   LBP
Company
Performance
Award ($)		   LBP
Individual
Performance
Award ($)		   PAU
Award
($)		   Total
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
Awards ($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   277,205     144,612     179,816     601,633  

Steven E. English

   141,682     139,613     65,550     346,845  

Clyde H. Fitch

   126,512     94,828     48,289     269,629  

James A. Yano

   83,025     86,625     34,960     204,610  

Jessica E. Buss

   203,912     68,255     182,042     454,209  

For 2012 non-equity incentive plan compensation, the dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the aggregate total of the following awards earned in 2012 by each NEO under the Company performance component of the LBP, the individual performance component of the LBP, the Quarterly Performance Bonus Plan (the “QPB”) and the PAUs relating to the 2010-2012 performance period:

   LBP
Company
Performance
Award ($)		   LBP
Individual
Performance
Award ($)		   PAU
Award
($)		   Total
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
Awards ($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   28,579     140,400     214,043     383,022  

Steven E. English

   14,600     119,530     73,710     207,840  

Clyde H. Fitch

   84,941     89,250     67,568     241,759  

James A. Yano

   7,328     68,000     48,825     124,153  

Jessica E. Buss

   176,126     79,590     130,175     385,891  

(4)

The dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the change in the pension values for each of our NEOs, including amounts accruing under our Retirement Plan and SERPs in which certain of our NEOs participate. None of our NEOs who participate in our non-qualified deferred compensation plan receive preferential or above-market earnings.

(5)

The table below shows the components of the “All Other Compensation” column for 2012 through 2014.

   Year  Company
Matches
($)(a)		  Spousal
Travel
Expenses
($)(b)		  Restricted
Stock
Dividends
($)		  Club
Membership
Dues
($)(c)		  Legal
Expenses
($)(d)		  Insurance
Premiums
($)		  Other
($)(f)		  Total
($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

  2014    28,768    11,111    15,964    2,790    0    44,809(e)   0    103,442  
  2013    27,962    6,148    17,011    2,790    0    43,107(e)   0    97,018  
  2012    27,300    7,402    30,018    2,790    4,013    42,919(e)   0    114,442  

Steven E. English

  2014    9,100    11,111    772    0    0    0    0    20,983  
  2013    8,925    6,148    0    0    0    0    0    15,073  
  2012    8,750    7,402    0    0    0    0    0    16,152  

Clyde H. Fitch

  2014    9,100    11,111    535    0    0    0    0    20,746  
  2013    8,925    6,148    0    0    0    0    0    15,073  
  2012    8,750    7,402    0    0    0    0    0    16,152  

James A. Yano

  2014    9,100    11,111    535    0    0    0    0    20,746  
  2013    8,925    6,148    0    0    0    0    0    15,073  
  2012    8,750    4,558    0    0    0    0    0    13,308  

Jessica E. Buss

  2014    22,100    6,876    557    0    0    0    129,474    159,007  
  2013    27,067    6,148    0    0    0    0    0    33,215  
  2012    21,250    7,402    0    0    0    0    0    28,652  

(a)

The dollar amounts in this column reflect Company-paid matches and contributions under our 401(k) and/or non-qualified deferred compensation plans. None of the amounts paid as matches or contributions received preferential earnings or interest.

(b)

The dollar amounts in this column reflect spousal/guest travel hosting on agent incentive trips and gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by the NEOs in connection with their receipt of such payments in 2014.

(c)

All of the dollar amounts in this column reflect non-golf club membership dues.

(d)

The dollar amount in this column reflects certain legal expenses paid by the Company on behalf of Mr. Restrepo.

(e)

These dollar amounts reflect the income attributed to Mr. Restrepo as a result of the long term disability policy obtained by the Company to address its disability obligation under his Employment Agreement ($28,992 in 2014, 2013 and 2012), and an amount to reimburse Mr. Restrepo for the income tax liability that he incurred as a result of such policy ($15,818, $14,115 and $13,927 in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively).

(f)

The dollar amount in this column reflects (i) $66,942 in payments made to Ms. Buss to reimburse her for expenses she incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $16,796 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Ms. Buss in connection with her receipt of such relocation payments) and (ii) $62,532 paid to Ms. Buss as a result of a third party service provider failing to withhold taxes on a payment it issued to Ms. Buss on behalf of the Company (for more information regarding this payment see “—Executive Compensation Program Elements—Executive Perquisites and Other Compensation”).

(6)

This dollar amount represents the grant date fair value of the restricted common shares awarded under our 2009 Equity Plan in the fiscal year indicated. The grant date fair value of the restricted common shares was determined by multiplying the closing price of our Common Shares on the date of grant ($21.23 and $13.53 for 2014 and 2012, respectively) by the number of restricted common shares granted.

Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2014

Name

 Grant
Date		  Non-Equity
Incentive
Plan
Number of
Units
(#)		  

 

Estimated Future Payouts
Under Non-Equity Incentive
Plan Awards
($)

  All Other
Stock  Awards:
Number of
Shares of
Stock
or Units
(#)		  All Other
Option Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options
(#)		  Exercise or
Base Price
of Option
Awards
($/Sh)		  Grant Date
Fair Value
of Stock
and
Option
Awards
($)		 
   Threshold
($)		  Target
($)		  Maximum
($)		     

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.:

         

Restricted stock award(1)

  3-6-14        8,826      187,376  

Stock option award(2)

  3-6-14         37,432    21.23    296,836  

LBP Company performance award(3)

  3-6-14     49,650    496,502    993,003      

LBP individual performance award(4)

  3-6-14     16,550    165,500    331,001      

PAU award(5)

  3-6-14    753,027    301,211    753,027    1,506,054      

Steven E. English:

         

Restricted stock award(1)

  3-6-14        2,572      54,604  

Stock option award(2)

  3-6-14         10,905    21.23    86,477  

LBP Company performance award(3)

  3-6-14     21,938    219,375    438,750      

LBP individual performance award(4)

  3-6-14     11,813    118,125    236,250      

PAU award(5)

  3-6-14    219,375    87,750    219,375    438,750      

Clyde H. Fitch:

         

Restricted stock award(1)

  3-6-14        1,783      37,853  

Stock option award(2)

  3-6-14         7,561    21.23    59,959  

LBP Company performance award(3)

  3-6-14     17,550    175,500    351,000      

LBP individual performance award(4)

  3-6-14     9,450    94,500    189,000      

PAU award(5)

  3-6-14    152,100    60,840    152,100    304,200      

James A. Yano:

         

Restricted stock award(1)

  3-6-14        1,783      37,853  

Stock option award(2)

  3-6-14         7,561    21.23    59,959  

LBP Company performance award(3)

  3-6-14     12,870    128,700    257,400      

LBP individual performance award(4)

  3-6-14     6,930    69,300    138,600      

PAU award(5)

  3-6-14    152,100    60,840    152,100    304,200      

Jessica E. Buss:

         

Restricted stock award(1)

  3-6-14        1,857      39,424  

Stock option award(2)

  3-6-14         7,876    21.23    62,457  

LBP Company performance award(3)

  3-6-14     14,438    144,375    288,750      

LBP individual performance award(4)

  3-6-14     6,188    61,875    123,750      

PAU award(5)

  3-6-14    158,438    63,375    158,438    316,876      

(1)

In 2014, all of our NEOs received restricted common shares under our 2009 Equity Plan. The restricted common shares shown in this column were granted on the date indicated pursuant to action of the Compensation Committee at a meeting held on that day. These restricted common shares vest on the third anniversary of the grant date. The grant date fair value of these restricted common shares was determined by multiplying the closing price of Common Shares on the date of grant ($21.23) by the number of restricted common shares granted. For a further discussion of the 2009 Equity Plan, see “—Executive Compensation Program Elements—Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation.”

(2)

In 2014, all of our NEOs received options under our 2009 Equity Plan. The options shown in this column were granted on the date indicated, at the closing price on that date, pursuant to action of the Compensation Committee at a meeting held on that day. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period and are exercisable for a ten-year term. All of these options are non-qualified stock options. The grant date fair value of these options was determined in accordance with ASC Topic 718. These options have not

been re-priced or otherwise materially amended. For a further discussion of the 2009 Equity Plan, see “—Executive Compensation Program Elements—Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation.”

(3)

In 2014, all of our NEOs participated in the LBP, an annual cash incentive bonus plan that has a Company performance component and an individual performance component. For our NEOs, awards for the Company performance component of the LBP are based solely upon the achievement of certain Company performance measures established by the Compensation Committee at the beginning of a performance year. The Compensation Committee selected Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio, return on equity and Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio as the performance measures for the Company performance component of the LBP for each of the NEOs participating in the LBP in 2014 other than Ms. Buss. For Ms. Buss, the Committee selected (a) Adjusted LBP Combined Ratio, return on equity and Adjusted Non-Catastrophe Loss Ratio as the performance measures applicable to one half of her 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunity and (b) Adjusted specialty insurance combined ratio, specialty insurance rate change and the Company’s return on equity as the performance measures applicable to the other half of her 2014 Company performance LBP bonus opportunity. The actual payments made to each NEO for the Company performance component of the LBP for 2014 are reported in the Summary Compensation Table in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column and the footnotes thereto. For a further discussion of the Company performance component of the LBP, see “—Executive Compensation Program Elements—Short-Term Incentive Compensation—Leadership Bonus Plan Bonuses.”

(4)

For our NEOs, awards for the individual performance component of the LBP are based on the attainment of individual performance goals for a performance year. Our Compensation Committee, with input from the Board of Directors and the State Auto Mutual Board, establishes the individual performance goals for the CEO. The CEO establishes the individual performance goals for the other NEOs. The actual payments made to each NEO for the individual performance component of the LBP for 2014 are reported in the Summary Compensation Table in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column and the footnotes thereto. For a further discussion of the individual performance component of the LBP, see “—Executive Compensation Program Elements—Short-Term Incentive Compensation—Leadership Bonus Plan Bonuses.”

(5)

In 2014, all of our NEOs were selected to participate in the LTIP, a cash incentive bonus plan, for the performance period beginning January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2016. Under the LTIP, the NEOs (except for Ms. Buss) receive performance award units, or “PAUs,” the value of which is determined by our Company’s performance in three equally weighted measures—(a) statutory combined ratio for the State Auto Group, (b) the State Auto Group’s net written premium growth (excluding the impact of the Quota Share Agreement) and (c) the State Auto Group’s surplus growth (excluding the impact of the Quota Share Agreement)—in comparison to the LTIP Peer Group over the three-year performance period. PAUs awarded to Ms. Buss for the 2014-2016 performance period are valued based on the achievement of three equally-weighted performance measures: (i) combined ratio for our Specialty Group; (ii) direct written premium for our Specialty Group; and (iii) surplus growth for the State Auto Group (excluding the impact of the Quota Share Agreement) — in comparison to the LTIP Peer Group over the three-year performance period. PAUs are granted with a target value of $1.00, although the final value of each PAU can range from $0.00 to $2.00. For a further discussion of the LTIP, see “—Executive Compensation Program Elements—Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation.”

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2014 Year-End

  Option Awards  Stock Awards

Name

 Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Exercisable		  Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)(1)
Unexercisable		  Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned
Options
(#)		  Option
Exercise
Price
($)		  Option
Expiration
Date		  Number
of
Shares
or
Units
of
Stock
That
Have
Not
Vested
(#)(2)		  Market
Value
of
Shares
or
Units
of
Stock
That
Have
Not
Vested
($)*		  Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number
of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other
Rights
That
Have Not
Vested
(#)		 Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Market
or Payout
Value of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other
Rights
That
Have Not
Vested
($)

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

  30,000    0    0    31.94    3/1/16    30,352    674,421    
  23,012    0    0    29.53    5/2/17      
  49,624    0    0    25.81    3/5/18      
  52,088    0    0    14.49    3/4/19      
  54,015    0    0    18.78    3/3/20      
  52,890    0    0    17.03    3/2/21      
  63,019    31,038    0    13.53    2/28/22      
  42,586    82,666    0    16.80    2/27/23      
  0    37,432    0    21.23    3/5/24      

Steven E. English

  2,500    0    0    26.45    5/9/15    2,572    57,150    
  6,300    0    0    33.50    5/16/16      
  5,910    0    0    29.53    5/2/17      
  10,834    0    0    25.81    3/5/18      
  12,025    0    0    14.49    3/4/19      
  18,601    0    0    18.78    3/3/20      
  21,796    0    0    17.03    3/2/21      
  11,037    5,436    0    13.53    2/28/22      
  12,438    24,144    0    16.80    2/27/23      
  0    10,905    0    21.23    3/5/24      

Clyde H. Fitch

  18,850    0    0    25.72    11/4/17    1,783    39,618    
  10,834    0    0    25.81    3/5/18      
  10,994    0    0    14.49    3/4/19      
  17,051    0    0    18.78    3/3/20      
  16,056    0    0    17.03    3/2/21      
  7,653    3,769    0    13.53    2/28/22      
  8,614    16,721    0    16.80    2/27/23      
  0    7,561    0    21.23    3/5/24      

James A. Yano

  5,682    0    0    29.53    5/2/17    1,783    39,618    
  7,527    0    0    25.81    3/5/18      
  7,929    0    0    14.49    3/4/19      
  12,322    0    0    18.78    3/3/20      
  11,625    0    0    17.03    3/2/21      
  5,541    2,728    0    13.53    2/28/22      
  8,614    16,721    0    16.80    2/27/23      
  0    7,561    0    21.23    3/5/24      

Jessica E. Buss

  12,850    0    0    17.03    3/2/21    1,857    41,263    
  6,125    3,016    0    13.53    2/28/22      
  8,983    17,437    0    16.80    2/27/23      
  0    7,876    0    21.23    3/5/24      

*

The closing price of our Common Shares on December 31, 2014 was $22.22.

(1)

All options listed in this table are exercisable for a ten-year period from their respective date of grant. The following schedule describes the vesting dates for the options listed as unexercisable by date of grant:

Options expiring February 28, 2022 were granted on March 1, 2012. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options will fully vest as of March 1, 2015.

Options expiring February 27, 2023 were granted on February 28, 2013. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options will fully vest as of February 28, 2016.

Options expiring March 5, 2024 were granted on March 6, 2014. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options will fully vest as of March 6, 2017.

(2)

All restricted common shares listed in this table vest on the third anniversary of the date of grant. Accordingly, all such shares will vest on March 6, 2017 except for 21,526 of such shares for Mr. Restrepo, which vested on March  1, 2015.

Option Exercises and Stock Vested in Fiscal 2014

   Option Awards   Stock Awards(1) 

Name

  Number of Shares
Acquired on Exercise
(#)		   Value Realized
on Exercise
($)		   Number of Shares
Acquired on Vesting
(#)		   Value Realized
on Exercise
($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   0     —     16,707     333,806  

Steven E. English

   0     —     0     —  

Clyde H. Fitch

   0     —     0     —  

James A. Yano

   0     —     0     —  

Jessica E. Buss

   0     —     0     —  

(1)

Mr. Restrepo surrendered 5,560 of these Common Shares to pay the tax obligations he incurred in connection with the vesting of the 16,707 shares of restricted stock. Mr. Restrepo has not sold the remaining Common Shares that he acquired upon the vesting of the restricted stock as such Common Shares are subject to a one-year holding requirement following the vesting date.

Retirement Plans

Retirement Plan

We maintain a defined benefit pension plan, referred to as our “Retirement Plan.” The Retirement Plan is intended to be a qualified plan under Section 401(a) of the Code and is subject to the minimum funding standards of Section 412 of the Code. All of our current NEOs (except Ms. Buss) and other employees hired before January 1, 2010 who did not elect to opt out are eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan. Benefits payable under the Retirement Plan are funded entirely through Company contributions to a trust fund. Only base salary, not incentive compensation, is taken into consideration in the calculation of benefits under our Retirement Plan.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans

Our SERP, which mirrors the Retirement Plan, provides a lump sum or deferred cash payments in actuarially determined amounts upon retirement for certain officers. Like the Retirement Plan, the SERP considers only base salary, not incentive compensation, in calculating the benefit due each participant. The Committee approved participation in this SERP for all NEOs, except for Ms. Buss who is not eligible to participate in the SERP. Executives are automatically enrolled in the SERP when his or her annual base salary exceeds the limit that can be considered in calculating benefits under the Retirement Plan.

In addition to the standard SERP discussed above, we have entered into an individual SERP agreement with Mr. Restrepo to offset the impact of the relatively shorter duration of employment available to him at our Company. We have a mandatory retirement age of 65 for certain officers. Mr. Restrepo is currently 64 and has been an employee for nine years. The Retirement Plan and the standard SERP, discussed above, both use a career average plan formula for benefit determinations. Under those plans, an employee’s period of service has a significant impact on the amount of retirement benefits they would be eligible to receive. As a result, our regular plans may inhibit our ability to attract mid-career executives who would not have the same opportunity to earn benefits comparable to other employees. For this reason, the Committee approved the individual SERP agreement for Mr. Restrepo. (See “Agreements with Named Executive Officers” on page 62 of this Proxy Statement.)

Pension Benefits in Fiscal 2014

Name

  Plan Name  Number of Years
Credited Service
(#)		  Present Value
of Accumulated
Benefit ($)(1)		   Payments During Last
Fiscal Year
($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

  Retirement Plan   9    184,874     0  
  SERP   9    412,693     0  
  Individual SERP   9    210,012     0  

Steven E. English

  Retirement Plan   14(2)   157,153     0  
  SERP   14(2)   112,032     0  

Clyde H. Fitch

  Retirement Plan   7    158,361     0  
  SERP   7    58,129     0  

James A. Yano

  Retirement Plan   8    163,256     0  
  SERP   8    49,500     0  

Jessica E. Buss(3)

       

(1)

The amounts shown in this column represent the present value of the normal retirement benefit each NEO would receive under the Retirement Plan, SERP and individual supplemental executive retirement plans if the NEO were to retire at his normal retirement age. Normal retirement age under the plans is defined as attaining age 65. The normal retirement benefit is equal to the sum of (i) 1.75% of a participant’s “covered compensation” multiplied by the participant’s years of service, plus (ii) 0.65% of a participant’s covered compensation multiplied by the participant’s years of service. The normal form of benefit under the Retirement Plan is a single life annuity; however, participants may elect a joint and survivor annuity with a survivor benefit of up to 100% of the participant’s benefit. A participant who elects a joint and survivor annuity receives a reduced annual benefit, with a joint and 100% survivor annuity providing the smallest annual benefit. Participants who have attained age 55 with 15 years of service may receive an early retirement benefit under the plans. The early retirement benefit for a participant is reduced by 5% for each year prior to age 65 for a participant who terminates between ages 55 and 59, and 4% for each year prior to age 65 for a participant who terminates between ages 60 and 65. If a participant were to retire at age 55, their normal retirement benefit would be reduced by 45%. As of December 31, 2014, no NEOs were eligible for early retirement benefits under the plans. Participants may elect to receive up to 50% of their benefits under the Retirement Plan in a lump-sum upon their retirement.

(2)

Includes Mr. English’s one year of service with Meridian Insurance Group, Inc. (“MIGI”). Mr. English was previously an executive officer with MIGI, which was acquired by State Auto Mutual in 2001. Following this acquisition, Mr. English became our employee, and for purposes of the Retirement Plan, he was given credit for his one year of eligible service with MIGI (total actuarial value of $21,327 within the SERP).

(3)

Ms. Buss is not eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan or SERP and is not a party to an individual supplemental executive retirement plan.

Deferred Compensation Plans

Defined Contribution Plan/401(k) Plan

Our defined contribution plan, which we refer to as the “Retirement Savings Plan” or “RSP,” is intended to be a qualified plan under Sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Code. Participation in the RSP is available on the same terms to all of our employees, including our NEOs. Each participant may elect to contribute from 1% to 50% of his or her base salary to the RSP. The deferred amount is contributed to the RSP trust fund and invested in accordance with the election of the participant from among investment funds established under the trust agreement. Investment options include Common Shares, but only up to 20% of new contributions and the total account balance may be invested in Common Shares. None of our NEOs made this election.

The Company may make a discretionary matching contribution of 100% of each participant’s RSP contributions for the first 1% of base salary, plus 50% of each participant’s RSP contribution between 2% and

6% of base salary, subject to limits imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. This equates to a Company contribution in the RSP of 58 cents for each salary dollar contributed by an employee who contributed a full 6% of salary to RSP. While a participant is always vested in his or her own salary reduction contributions, the right of a participant to amounts credited to his or her account as matching contributions is subject to vesting as provided by the RSP.

In 2010, all of our employees hired before January 1, 2010, including our NEOs, made an election to either (i) continue participating in the Retirement Plan and RSP on the terms discussed above or (ii) cease participating in the Retirement Plan as of June 30, 2010 in favor of participating in an expanded benefit under the RSP beginning on July 1, 2010, pursuant to which the Company would annually contribute to the RSP an amount equal to 5% of their annual base salary until the termination of their employment with the Company. If an employee elected to participate in the expanded RSP benefit, they would continue to be eligible to receive upon retirement their accrued benefit under the Retirement Plan as of June 30, 2010.

Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan/Supplemental 401(k) Plan

Our Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, which we refer to as our “Shadow Plan,” is a non-qualified, unfunded deferred compensation plan for eligible key employees. Eligible employees include those who are precluded by regulatory limitations from contributing a full 6% of salary to the RSP or who choose to defer a portion of their salary beyond the amount matched by the RSP. Under the Shadow Plan, eligible employees who wish to participate enter into a salary reduction agreement to defer payment of an additional portion of the employee’s salary. Each employee who is eligible to participate in the Shadow Plan is credited annually with his or her allocable share of Company matching contributions on the same basis that contributions are matched under the RSP, provided that no more than 6% of any employee’s base salary is subject to being matched in the aggregate under the RSP and the Shadow Plan.

The total amount of salary deferred under the RSP and the Shadow Plan cannot exceed in the aggregate 50% of a participant’s base salary. The Shadow Plan also allows participants to defer up to 100% of short-term and long-term incentive compensation, although bonuses remain ineligible for a Company match. Amounts deferred under the Shadow Plan, along with the Company match on any portion of salary deferral eligible for the match, are invested by State Auto P&C in a variety of mutual fund-type investment options in accordance with the election of the participants (including a Company stock option), which the participants may modify on a daily basis. Participants may choose from a variety of mutual fund-type investment options, and elect a five or ten-year payout option or a “date-certain” distribution option for withdrawal of funds from the Plan. Neither the Shadow Plan nor the RSP provides for above market or preferential earnings opportunities for any participant.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation for Fiscal 2014

Name

  Executive
Contributions
in Last Fiscal
Year
($)(1)(2)		   Registrant
Contributions in
Last
Fiscal Year
($)(1)(3)		   Aggregate Earnings
in Last Fiscal Year
($)(4)		   Aggregate
Withdrawals/
Distributions
($)		   Aggregate
Balance at
Last
Fiscal
Year-End
($)		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   26,316     19,668     35,482     0     611,214  

Steven E. English

   0     0     20,003     0     597,403  

Clyde H. Fitch

   0     0     1,427     0     26,644  

James A. Yano

   0     0     2,446     0     27,752  

Jessica E. Buss

   0     0     1,236     0     20,717  

(1)

Contributions by the NEO or by us, as the case may be, were made pursuant to the Shadow Plan.

(2)

The dollar amounts shown in this column are included in the “Salary” column in the Summary Compensation Table.

(3)

The dollar amounts shown in this column are included in the “All Other Compensation” column in the Summary Compensation Table and are discussed in the footnotes thereto.

(4)

The dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the total earnings on dollars deposited into the NEO’s account in 2014 and all prior years for which the NEO deferred compensation on a non-qualified basis. Earnings are not preferential, in any sense. The dollars in these accounts are invested in investment funds that mirror the investment funds offered to participants in our RSP.

Agreements with Named Executive Officers

Restrepo Employment Agreement

We entered into an employment agreement with Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, on December 22, 2011. The employment agreement has a four-year term ending on December 31, 2015, unless terminated earlier due to Mr. Restrepo’s disability, death, voluntary termination of employment, or involuntary termination of employment by the Company for cause or without cause. Mr. Restrepo’s retirement from the Company, whether initiated by Mr. Restrepo or mandatory, will be treated as his voluntary termination of employment.

Under his employment agreement, Mr. Restrepo receives an annual base salary and is entitled to participate in the LBP, the QPB (for so long as the Company continues to offer the QPB to its executives), the LTIP, any Company employee stock purchase plan, the Retirement Plan, the RSP, the SERP, the Restrepo SERP (as defined below) and the 2009 Equity Plan, and is eligible to participate in all other incentive compensation plans, stock purchase plans, retirement plans, equity-based compensation plans and fringe benefits generally made available to executives of the Company. The employment agreement further provides that unless Mr. Restrepo otherwise agrees (i) his annual base salary shall not be less than $780,000, (ii) his target bonus under the LBP shall not be less than 75% of his then-current annual base salary and (iii) his potential bonus compensation under the LBP shall not be less than his potential bonus compensation under the LBP as of December 22, 2011. The compensation paid to Mr. Restrepo in 2012, 2013 and 2014 is set forth in the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 53 of this Proxy Statement.

Mr. Restrepo’s employment agreement also imposes post-employment covenants that prohibit Mr. Restrepo from disclosing or using our confidential information, engaging in activities which compete with our businesses and soliciting our employees to work for another company. The obligations imposed by the non-competition and non-solicitation covenants will continue for a period of two years following Mr. Restrepo’s separation of service with the Company, provided, that the non-competition obligations will only continue for a period of one year if Mr. Restrepo’s separation from service with the Company is voluntary.

The severance and separation benefits provided to Mr. Restrepo under his employment agreement upon the occurrence of certain termination events are described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control—Restrepo Employment Agreement.” Mr. Restrepo may be required to repay all or any part of such severance and separation benefits if:

Mr. Restrepo violates any of the non-competition, non-solicitation or confidentiality covenants applicable to Mr. Restrepo;

(i) the amount of such benefits are calculated based upon the achievement of certain financial results that are subsequently the subject of a financial statement restatement by the Company; (ii) Mr. Restrepo engages in conduct detrimental to the Company that causes or substantially contributes to the need for the financial statement restatement; and (iii) the amount of his severance and separation benefits would have been lower than the amount actually awarded to him had the financial results been properly reported; or

Mr. Restrepo engages in (i) any conduct detrimental to the Company during the employment term which has a material adverse effect on the Company or (ii) any fraudulent conduct.

Mr. Restrepo is also eligible to participate in an individual Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan established for him by the Company (the “Restrepo SERP”). The Restrepo SERP generally provides Mr. Restrepo with supplemental retirement benefits to the extent necessary to cause his aggregate retirement benefits to equal 50% of his average total cash compensation during his final three years of employment by the Company; provided, however, that the benefits payable pursuant to the Restrepo SERP will be proportionately reduced if Mr. Restrepo has less than 20 years of service with the Company at retirement. The Company has a mandatory retirement age of 65 for executive officers, and Mr. Restrepo was age 55 when he began his employment with the Company. As a result, Mr. Restrepo will have no more than 10 years of service with the Company when he reaches mandatory retirement age, which will reduce the benefits payable pursuant to the Restrepo SERP accordingly.

Restrepo Executive Agreement

We entered into an executive agreement with Mr. Restrepo on December 22, 2011 contemporaneously with our entry into his new employment agreement. The term of Mr. Restrepo’s executive agreement coincides with the term of his employment agreement, subject to an extension for 36 months after any month in which a Change of Control occurs. Mr. Restrepo’s executive agreement will terminate if his employment terminates prior to a Change of Control unless the termination occurs in the event of a pending Change of Control event.

We will provide certain severance benefits to Mr. Restrepo under his executive agreement if Mr. Restrepo incurs a separation of service (as defined by Section 409A of the Code) during the term of his executive agreement:

by us at any time within 24 months after a Change of Control;

by Mr. Restrepo for good reason (as defined in the executive agreement) at any time within 24 months after a Change of Control; or

by us at any time after an agreement has been reached with an unaffiliated third party, the performance of which would result in a Change of Control involving that party, if such Change of Control is consummated within 12 months after the date of Mr. Restrepo’s termination.

The severance and separation benefits provided to Mr. Restrepo under his executive agreement are described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control—Restrepo Executive Agreement.”

Mr. Restrepo’s executive agreement also provides that, for a period of five years after the earlier to occur of a Change of Control or a separation of service, we would provide Mr. Restrepo with coverage under a standard directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy at our expense. Furthermore, we will indemnify and hold harmless Mr. Restrepo to the fullest extent permitted under Ohio law if he is made a party to any proceeding by reason of having served as our director, officer or employee.

English, Fitch, Yano and Buss Executive Agreements

We entered into a new change of control agreement, which we refer to as “executive agreements,” with each of our NEOs other than Mr. Restrepo effective as of October 27, 2014. The new executive agreements with these Named Executive Officers, which are identical in all respects, replaced their previous change of control agreements which were expiring by their terms.

The term of the executive agreements ends on the earlier to occur of the third anniversary of the agreement and the end of the month in which the Executive attains age 65; provided, that if a Change of Control occurs during the three-year period, the term of the executive agreement will automatically extend until the earlier to occur of the 36-month anniversary of the date of the Change of Control or the date on which the executive reaches age 65. The executive agreement will terminate if the executive’s employment terminates prior to a Change of Control.

Each of the executive agreements defines a “Change of Control” to include the following:

the acquisition by any person of beneficial ownership of 30% or more of the Company’s outstanding voting securities (which percentage will increase or decrease, as the case may be, such that the percentage of securities ownership is consistent with any future changes to the percentage of securities ownership represented in the Change of Control definition in the 2009 Equity Plan);

a majority of the Board is comprised of other than continuing directors;

a merger involving the Company where the Company’s shareholders immediately prior to the merger own 50% or less of the combined voting power of the surviving entity immediately after the merger;

a sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company, including a sale of assets or earning power aggregating more than 50% of the assets or earning power of the Company on a consolidated basis;

a reorganization or other corporate event involving the Company which would have the same effect as any of the above-described events; and

State Auto Mutual affiliates with or is merged into or consolidated with a third party or completes a conversion to a stock insurance company and, as a result, a majority of the Board of Directors of State Auto Mutual or its successor is comprised of other than continuing directors.

We will provide certain severance benefits to the executive under the executive agreement if during the term of his or her executive agreement the executive’s employment is terminated:

by us at any time within 24 months after a Change of Control (for any reason other than for cause, the death or disability of the executive or mandatory retirement at age 65);

by the executive for good reason (as defined in the executive agreement) at any time within 24 months after a Change of Control; or

by us (for any reason other than for cause or the death or disability of the executive) at any time after an agreement has been reached with an unaffiliated third party, the performance of which would result in a Change of Control involving that party, if such Change of Control is actually consummated within 12 months after the date of the executive’s termination.

The severance and separation benefits provided to each of our other executives under his executive agreement are described below under “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control—English, Fitch, Yano and Buss Executive Agreements.”

These executive agreements prohibit the executive from disclosing or using our confidential information. The Board may require the executive to repay all or any portion of the severance benefits if:

the executive violates any of the non-competition, non-solicitation or confidentiality covenants applicable to the executive;

(i) the amount of such benefits are calculated based upon the achievement of certain financial results that are subsequently the subject of a financial statement restatement by the Company; (ii) the executive engages in conduct detrimental to the Company that causes or substantially contributes to the need for the financial statement restatement; and (iii) the amount of his or her severance and separation benefits would have been lower than the amount actually awarded to him had the financial results been properly reported; or

the executive engages in any conduct detrimental to the Company during the employment term which has a material adverse effect on the Company.

These executive agreements also provide that, for a period of five years after a Change of Control, we will provide the executive with coverage under a standard directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policy at our

expense. Furthermore, we will indemnify and hold harmless the executive to the fullest extent permitted under Ohio law if he or she is made a party to any proceeding by reason of having served as our director, officer or employee.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control

Restrepo Employment Agreement

Mr. Restrepo’s employment agreement provides him with the following severance and separation benefits under the following termination events:

Termination for Cause. If Mr. Restrepo is terminated for cause, he would be entitled to receive his base salary through the date of termination plus any compensation to which he would have been entitled under the LBP, QPB and LTIP as then in effect. Mr. Restrepo’s employment agreement defines cause as:

the willful and continued failure of the executive to perform the executive’s duties (other than any such failure resulting from incapacity due to a disability), after a written demand for performance is delivered to the executive which specifically identifies the manner in which the executive has not performed the executive’s duties;

the willful engaging by the executive in illegal conduct or gross misconduct which has a material adverse effect on the Company;

the breach of any of the confidentiality, non-competition or non-solicitation covenants imposed by the employment agreement; or

the willful failure by the executive to comply with any code of conduct or code of ethics applicable to the executive.

For purposes of the definition of cause, no act or failure to act, on the part of the executive, will be considered “willful” unless it is done, or omitted to be done, by the executive in bad faith or without reasonable belief that the executive’s action or omission was in the best interests of the Company.

Termination Without Cause. If Mr. Restrepo is terminated without cause (other than in the event of his death, disability or retirement), he would be entitled to receive:

his then-current base salary for the lesser of 24 months or until December 31, 2015;

a one-year bonus payment equal to the average of the aggregate bonuses Mr. Restrepo earned under the QPB, LBP and LTIP for the two years immediately preceding the year in which the employment agreement is terminated; and

an amount equal to the then current monthly per employee cost of providing State Auto’s health insurance benefit multiplied by the lesser of 24 or the number of months from the date of termination until December 31, 2015.

In addition, if Mr. Restrepo is terminated without cause, any stock options granted to Mr. Restrepo shall vest on the termination date.

Death. In the event Mr. Restrepo dies while employed by State Auto, his beneficiaries will receive his then-current base salary for the lesser of 12 months or until December 31, 2015 plus a pro rata share of the compensation he earned under the QPB, LBP and LTIP as of the date of death.

Disability. If Mr. Restrepo becomes disabled for more than six consecutive months in any 12-month period, the Company may terminate Mr. Restrepo’s employment. In the event of a termination for disability, Mr. Restrepo would be entitled to receive his base salary and payments under our incentive compensation plans to the date of termination. After the date of termination, he would be entitled to receive 80% of his then-current base salary, less any disability benefits received from any of State Auto’s long-term disability benefit plans, until

the earlier to occur of the end of the period of his disability or December 31, 2015. In addition, Mr. Restrepo shall continue to receive such health insurance benefits as he and his spouse receive on the date of the disability and such group life insurance as Mr. Restrepo has in place on his life as of the date of the disability.

Voluntary Termination. If Mr. Restrepo voluntarily terminates his employment, including retirement initiated solely by Mr. Restrepo and mandatory retirement on December 31, 2015, he shall cease to receive compensation as of the date of his separation from service, except for any compensation to which he is entitled under the QPB, LBP or LTIP as then in effect, provided, that he is employed by State Auto on the date such compensation is paid under the QPB, LBP or LTIP.

Restrepo Executive Agreement

We will provide the following severance benefits (in addition to accrued compensation, bonuses and vested benefits and stock options) to Mr. Restrepo under his executive agreement if his employment with State Auto is terminated during the term of his executive agreement under the circumstances set forth above under “Change of Control Agreements with Named Executive Officers—Restrepo Executive Agreement”:

a lump sum cash payment equal to 2.99 times Mr. Restrepo’s then-current annual base salary (subject to reduction if Mr. Restrepo is within two years of mandatory retirement on December 31, 2015);

a lump sum cash payment equal to 2.99 times the average of the annual aggregate bonuses Mr. Restrepo earned under the LBP for the two years immediately preceding the year in which the Change of Control occurs (subject to reduction if Mr. Restrepo is within two years of mandatory retirement on December 31, 2015);

an amount equal to the then current monthly per employee cost of providing the Company’s health insurance benefit multiplied by the lesser of 24 or the number of months from the date of termination until December 31, 2015;

life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance coverage and disability insurance coverage in effect on the date of termination (other than payment of income replacement benefits) for a two-year period commencing on the date of termination or until December 31, 2015, whichever is earlier;

•

retirement benefits in an amount equal tothe excess of (i) the retirement benefits that would be payable to Mr. Restrepo or his beneficiaries, under the defined benefit retirement plans in which Mr. Restrepo participates (including the SERP and the Restrepo SERP) if (A) the terms of such plans were those most favorable to Mr. Restrepo and (B) Mr. Restrepo’s highest average annual compensation as defined under such defined benefit retirement plansover (ii) the retirement benefits that are payable to Mr. Restrepo or Mr. Restrepo’s beneficiaries under such defined benefit retirement plans in which Mr. Restrepo participates;

outplacement benefits up to a maximum amount equal to 15% of Mr. Restrepo’s annual base salary plus up to $5,000 to reimburse Mr. Restrepo for travel expenses he incurs in connection with seeking new employment; and

stock options or other equity-based awards held by Mr. Restrepo become exercisable in accordance with the applicable terms of the equity compensation plans and award agreements.

If Mr. Restrepo’s severance payments and benefits would not be subject to excise tax if the total of such payments and benefits were reduced by 10% or less, then such payments and benefits would be reduced by the minimum amount necessary (not to exceed 10% of such payments and benefits) so that we would not have to pay an excess severance payment and Mr. Restrepo would not be subject to an excise tax.

English, Fitch, Yano and Buss Executive Agreements

We will provide the following severance benefits (in addition to accrued compensation and bonuses) to the executive under the executive agreement if the executive’s employment with the Company is terminated during the term of his executive agreement under the circumstances set forth above under “Agreements with Named Executive Officers—English, Fitch, Yano and Buss Executive Agreements.”

a lump sum cash payment equal to two times the executive’s annual base salary (subject to reduction if the executive is within two years of age 65);

a lump sum cash payment equal to two times the average of the annual aggregate bonus earned by the executive under each of the LBP and QPB during the three fiscal years immediately preceding the year in which the Change of Control occurs (subject to reduction if the executive is within two years of age 65);

outplacement benefits up to a maximum amount equal to 15% of the executive’s annual base salary plus up to $5,000 to reimburse the executive for travel expenses incurred in connection with seeking new employment;

stock options and other equity awards held by the executive become exercisable in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan; and

an amount equal to the then current monthly per employee cost of providing the Company’s health insurance benefit multiplied by 24 (subject to reduction if the executive is within two years of age 65).

These executive agreements also provide that if the executive’s severance payments and benefits would not be subject to excise tax if the total of such payments and benefits were reduced by 10% or less, then such payments and benefits would be reduced by the minimum amount necessary (not to exceed 10% of such payments and benefits) so that the executive would not be subject to an excise tax.

The following table summarizes the potential payments to NEOs upon a termination of employment and/or a change of control of the Company (assuming that the triggering event occurred on December 31, 2014):

Name

  Benefit(1)  Termination
Without
Cause(2)		  Termination
For Cause or
Voluntary
Termination		  Death  Disability  After
Change
of Control		 

Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

   Salary   $827,502(3)  $-0-   $827,502(3)  $-0-(4)  $827,502(3) 
   Cash Bonus(5)  $2,833,737(6)  $1,679,407(7)  $1,651,931(7)  $2,341,409(7)  $1,974,805(8) 
   Stock Options  $754,828(9)  $754,828(9)  $754,828(9)  $754,828(9)  $754,828(9) 
   Restricted Stock  $196,114(10)  $196,114(10)  $674,421(10)  $674,421(10)  $674,421(10) 
   Health Benefits  $7,200(11)  $-0-   $7,200(12)  $96,304(12)  $7,200(11) 
   Group Life; Disability  $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $662,002(13)  $1,338(14) 
   Outplacement Assistance  $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $129,125(15) 
   Retirement Benefits  $3,948,531(16)  $3,948,531(16)  $3,948,531(16)  $3,948,531(16)  $3,948,531(16) 
   TOTAL:   $8,567,912   $6,578,880   $7,864,413   $8,477,495   $8,317,750  
       

Steven E. English

   Salary   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-(4)  $900,000(17) 
   Cash Bonus(18)  $775,125(7)  $-0-   $775,125(7)  $775,125(7)  $389,450(19) 
   Health Benefits   $-0-   $-0-   $7,200(12)  $17,352(12)  $14,400(11) 
   Stock Options   $-0-   $-0-   $188,901(9)  $188,901(9)  $188,901(9) 
   Restricted Stock   $-0-   $-0-   $57,150(10)  $57,150(10)  $57,150(10) 
   Outplacement Assistance  $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $72,500(15) 
   Retirement Benefits  $769,043(16)  $769,043(16)  $769,043(16)  $769,043(16)  $769,043(16) 
   TOTAL:  $1,544,168   $769,043   $1,797,419   $1,807,571   $2,391,444  
       

Clyde H. Fitch

   Salary   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-(4)  $420,000(17) 
   Cash Bonus(18)  $712,650(7)  $442,650(7)  $573,333(7)  $712,650(7)  $647,291(19) 
   Stock Options  $130,866(9)  $130,866(9)  $130,866(9)  $130,866(9)  $130,866(9) 
   Restricted Stock   $39,618(10)  $39,618(10)  $39,618(10)  $39,618(10)  $39,618(10) 
   Health Benefits   $-0-   $-0-   $7,200(12)  $17,352(12)  $8,400(11) 
   Outplacement Assistance  $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $59,000(15) 
   Retirement Benefits   $702,586(16)  $702,586(16)  $702,586(16)  $702,586(16)  $702,856(16) 
   TOTAL:  $1,585,720   $1,315,720   $1,453,603   $1,603,072   $2,008,031  
       

James A. Yano

   Salary   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-(4)  $720,000(17) 
   Cash Bonus(18)  $591,850(7)  $393,850(7)  $452,533(7)  $591,850(7)  $614,502(19) 
   Stock Options  $121,820(9)  $121,820(9)  $121,820(9)  $121,820(9)  $121,820(9) 
   Restricted Stock   $39,618(10)  $39,618(10)  $39,618(10)  $39,618(10)  $39,618(10) 
   Health Benefits   $-0-   $-0-   $7,200(12)  $17,352(12)  $14,400(11) 
   Outplacement Assistance  $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $59,000(15) 
   Retirement Benefits   $671,184(16)  $671,184(16)  $671,184(16)  $671,184(16)  $671,184(16) 
   TOTAL:  $1,424,472   $1,226,472   $1,292,355   $1,441,824   $2,240,524  
       

Jessica E. Buss

   Salary   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-(4)  $750,000(17) 
   Cash Bonus(18)  $479,640(7)  $-0-   $479,640(7)  $479,640(7)  $519,947(19) 
   Stock Options   $-0-   $-0-   $128,515(9)  $128,515(9)  $128,515(9) 
   Restricted Stock   $-0-   $-0-   $41,263(10)  $41,263(10)  $41,263(10) 
   Health Benefits   $-0-   $-0-   $7,200(12)  $17,352(12)  $14,400(11) 
   Outplacement Assistance  $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $-0-   $61,250(15) 
   TOTAL:  $479,640   $-0-   $656,618   $666,770   $1,515,375  

(1)

The potential post-employment payments and benefits shown in this table are payable to Messrs. Restrepo, English, Fitch and Yano and Ms. Buss pursuant to their respective employment and/or executive agreements with us, the applicable terms of the LBP, LTIP, 2009 Equity Plan and associated award agreements and our retirement, disability and deferred compensation plans. Unless otherwise indicated, all payments would be made in one-lump amount. For narrative disclosure of the material terms of our agreements with Messrs.

Restrepo, English, Fitch and Yano and Ms. Buss see “—Agreements with Named Executive Officers” on page 62 of this Proxy Statement, “—Restrepo Employment Agreement” on page 62 of this Proxy Statement, “Restrepo Executive Agreement” on page 63 of this Proxy Statement, “—English, Fitch, Yano and Buss Executive Agreements” on page 63 of this Proxy Statement and the narrative disclosure that immediately precedes this table.

(2)

Under the applicable agreements, there are no provisions permitting the NEOs to terminate their employment for good reason prior to a change of control of our Company or State Auto Mutual.

(3)

This dollar amount represents Mr. Restrepo’s annual base salary on December 31, 2014.

(4)

If terminated for disability, the NEO would be entitled to receive 60% of his or her base salary as of December 31, 2014 until retirement at age 65 or the disability terminates, payable in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll practices.

(5)

In the event Mr. Restrepo is terminated without cause or by reason of his voluntary termination or disability, he would be entitled to the payment he would have received under the LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination had he remained employed through the end of such performance periods. The Company cannot develop a reasonable estimate of any future payments under the LTIP because it does not have final performance data for any performance period under the LTIP and cannot predict the performance of the members of the LTIP Peer Group. Accordingly, the Company has assumed, solely for the purpose of providing a quantification of the amounts that would be payable to Mr. Restrepo upon a hypothetical termination of his employment without cause or by reason of his voluntary termination, that each of the performance measures applicable to each performance period in effect under the LTIP as of the date of termination would be satisfied at the target level. Mr. Restrepo would not be entitled to any award under the LTIP in the event his employment is terminated for cause. In the event Mr. Restrepo is terminated by reason of his death, he would be entitled to an award under the LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination equal to his target award for each such performance period multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which would be the number of days of employment in the performance period through the date of termination, and the denominator of which would be the number of days in the performance period.

(6)

This dollar amount represents the sum of (i) the average of the aggregate bonuses Mr. Restrepo earned under the LBP and LTIP for 2012 and 2013 ($492,328) and (ii) the amount of compensation to which he is entitled pursuant to the LBP and LTIP as of December 31, 2014 ($2,341,409).

(7)

This dollar amount represents the amount of compensation to which the NEO is entitled pursuant to the LBP and LTIP as of December 31, 2014.

(8)

This dollar amount represents the sum of (i) a pro-rated portion (determined in accordance with Mr. Restrepo’s executive agreement) of an amount equal to 2.99 times the sum of the average of the annual aggregate bonuses Mr. Restrepo earned under the LBP for the two years immediately preceding the year in which the Change of Control occurs ($295,398) and (ii) the amount of compensation to which he is entitled under the LTIP as of December 31, 2014.

(9)

This dollar amount represents the aggregate difference between the closing market price of our Common Shares on December 31, 2014 ($22.22) and the exercise price of the unvested stock options held by the NEO on December 31, 2014, the vesting of which will accelerate upon the termination event.

(10)

This dollar amount represents the number of Common Shares underlying the restricted common shares held by the NEO on December 31, 2014 that were awarded after January 1, 2014 multiplied by the closing market price of our Common Shares on December 31, 2014 ($22.22).

(11)

This dollar amount represents the monthly per employee cost of providing State Auto’s health insurance benefit as of December 31, 2014 ($600) multiplied by 24 or the number of months until age 65 retirement.

(12)

This dollar amount represents our estimate of the present value of the health benefits the NEO would be entitled to if he was terminated on December 31, 2014 by reason of his or her death or disability, as applicable.

(13)

This dollar amount represents our estimate of the present value of the disability benefits Mr. Restrepo would be entitled to if he was terminated on December 31, 2014 by reason of his disability.

(14)

This dollar amount represents the estimated cost to provide the NEO with 24 months of continued life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance coverage and 24 months of continued disability insurance coverage.

(15)

This dollar amount represents 15% of the value of the NEO’s annual base salary as of December 31, 2014 plus a travel expense account of up to $5,000 to reimburse the NEO for travel expenses he incurs in connection with seeking new employment.

(16)

This dollar amount represents the value of the retirement benefits payable to the NEO or his beneficiaries under the retirement plans of the Company in which the NEO participates assuming the termination event was effective on December 31, 2014.

(17)

This dollar amount represents two times the NEO’s annual base salary as of December 31, 2014, (subject to reduction if the executive is within two years of age 65).

(18)

In the event a non-CEO NEO who is not eligible for retirement under the LTIP (Mr. English and Ms. Buss) is terminated without cause or by reason of his or her disability, the NEO would be entitled to a prorated award under the LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination based upon the length of time that the NEO was employed by the Company during the performance period. In the event a non-CEO NEO who is eligible for retirement under the LTIP (Messrs. Fitch and Yano) is terminated without cause or by reason of his voluntary termination or disability, the NEO would be entitled to the payment he would have received under the LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination had the NEO remained employed through the end of such performance periods. The Company cannot develop a reasonable estimate of any future payments under the LTIP because it does not have final performance data for any performance period under the LTIP and cannot predict the performance of the members of the LTIP Peer Group. Accordingly, the Company has assumed, solely for the purpose of providing a quantification of the amounts that would be payable to the NEO upon a hypothetical termination of his employment without cause or by reason of his voluntary termination, that each of the performance measures applicable to each performance period in effect under the LTIP as of the date of termination would be satisfied at the target level. The NEO would not be entitled to any award under the LTIP in the event his employment is terminated for cause. In the event of termination of the NEO’s employment by reason of his or her death, the NEO would be entitled to an award under the LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination equal to his target award for each such performance period multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which would be the number of days of employment in the performance period through the date of termination, and the denominator of which would be the number of days in the performance period.

(19)

For non-CEO NEOs who are not eligible for retirement under the LTIP (Mr. English and Ms. Buss), this dollar amount represents two times the average of the annual aggregate bonus earned by the executive under each of the LBP and QPB for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Non-CEO NEOs who are eligible for retirement under the LTIP (Messrs. Fitch and Yano), would be entitled to a dollar amount equal to the sum of (i) two times the average of the annual aggregate bonus earned by the executive under each of the LBP and QPB for 2011, 2012 and 2013 and (ii) the payment the NEO would have received under the LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination had the NEO remained employed through the end of such performance periods. The Company cannot develop a reasonable estimate of any future payments under the LTIP because it does not have final performance data for any performance period under the LTIP and cannot predict the performance of the members of the LTIP Peer Group. Accordingly, the Company has assumed, solely for the purpose of providing a quantification of the amounts that would be payable in connection with this event to a non-CEO NEO, that each of the performance measures applicable to each performance period in effect under the LTIP as of the date of termination would be satisfied at the target level.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION

The Compensation Committee currently consists of the following four members of our Board of Directors: Chairperson Robert E. Baker; David J. D’Antoni; Alexander B. Trevor; and Paul S. Williams. None of the members of the Compensation Committee is, or was, an officer or employee of our Company or any of our subsidiaries or of State Auto Mutual. Also, none of our executive officers served during 2014 as a member of a compensation committee or as a director of any entity for which any of our directors served as an executive officer.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors oversees our compensation programs on behalf of our Board. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Compensation Committee reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis set forth in this Proxy Statement. Based upon the review and discussions referred to above, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in our Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 2014 fiscal year and in this Proxy Statement.

Compensation Committee

Robert E. Baker, Chairperson

David J. D’Antoni

Alexander B. Trevor

Paul S. Williams

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee provides assistance to our directors in fulfilling their responsibility to our shareholders relating to corporate accounting, reporting practices, internal controls relating to financial reporting, and the quality and integrity of our financial reports. In so doing, the Audit Committee maintains free and open communication between our directors, independent registered public accounting firm, internal auditors and senior management. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is not the duty of the Audit Committee to plan or conduct audits or to determine that our financial statements and disclosures are complete, accurate and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and applicable rules and regulations. These are the responsibilities of our management and our independent registered public accounting firm.

firm, respectively.

In the course of fulfilling its responsibilities, the Audit Committee reviewed the audited financial statements in our Company’sCompany's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 20142016 fiscal year with our management, including a discussion of the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments, and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements. The Audit Committee also reviewed with our independent registered public accounting firm, who are responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of those audited financial statements with United States’States' generally accepted accounting principles (“("US GAAP”GAAP"), their judgments as to the quality, not just the acceptability, of our accounting principles and such other matters as are required to be discussed with the Audit Committee under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, including those matters required to be discussed by Auditing Standard ("AS") No. 16,1301 (previously AS No. 16), Communications with Audit Committees, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. In addition, the Audit Committee discussed with our independent registered public accounting firm its independence from our management and considered the compatibility of any permitted and pre-approved non-audit services with the independent registered public accounting firm’sfirm's independence. The Audit Committee also received written disclosures regarding the independent auditors’auditors' independence from management and the Company, and received a letter confirming that fact from the independent auditors, which included applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding the independent accountant’saccountant's communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence.

The Audit Committee discussed with our internal auditor and independent registered public accounting firm the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Audit Committee regularly monitors our compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Company uses the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) framework to evaluate the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee periodically reviews the suitability of this framework with management. The Audit Committee and management currently believe that the COSO 2013 framework is a suitable framework for its evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting because it is free from bias, permits reasonably qualitative and quantitative measurements of our internal controls, is sufficiently complete so that those relevant factors that would alter a conclusion about the effectiveness of our internal controls are not omitted and is relevant to an evaluation of internal control over financial reporting. The Audit Committee meets with our internal auditor and independent registered public accounting firm, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of our internal controls, and the overall quality of our financial reporting. The Audit Committee also meets with our Chief Financial Officer and our General Counsel without the rest of management present to discuss any matters of interest to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee receives the annual Actuarial Report on Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense Reserves from the Chief Actuarial Officer who may present more often on any matters of interest to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee meets with our Chief Actuarial Officer without the rest of management present to discuss any matters of interest to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee receives a quarterly report from the CRO or the directormembers of enterprise risk management on selected risk areas. In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to our Board of Directors (and our Board has approved) that the audited financial statements be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 20142016 fiscal year for filing with the SEC.

The Audit Committee held a total of eight meetings in 2014, four in person and four by conference calls. Ms. Mallesch and Mr. Williams participated in 100% of the meetings. Mr. Baker and Mr. Meuse attended 87.5% and 75% of the meetings, respectively. All of the members of the Audit Committee are independent directors as defined by the Nasdaq listing rules and the applicable regulations of the SEC.

The full responsibilities of the Audit Committee are set forth in its charter. The charter is reviewed annually by the Audit Committee and our Board and, if deemed necessary following such review, amended. In addition to the foregoing, these responsibilities include sole authority for selecting our independent registered public accounting firm, reviewing with management the adequacy of loss reserves, pre-approving expenditures for services of our independent registered public accounting firm, sole authority to retain independent advisors, receipt and disposition of matters relating to allegations of accounting or other improprieties, reviewing matters relating to our Code of Business Conduct and participating in disclosure control procedures and functioning as our qualified legal compliance committee. The Audit Committee also consults with our General Counsel with respect to legal matters affecting the Company.

As discussed above, the Audit Committee is responsible to monitor and review our financial reporting process on behalf of our Board of Directors. However, it is not the duty or responsibility of the Audit Committee to conduct auditing or accounting reviews or procedures. Members of the Audit Committee are not our employees, and some members are not accountants or auditors by


profession or experts in the fields of accounting or auditing. Therefore, the Audit Committee has relied, without independent verification, on management’smanagement's representation that the financial statements have been prepared with integrity and objectivity and in conformity with US GAAP and on the representationsaudit opinions of our independent registered public accounting firm included in its report on our financial statements. The Audit Committee’sCommittee's review does not provide the Audit Committee with an independent basis to determine that management has maintained appropriate accounting and financial reporting principles or policies, or appropriate internal controls and procedures designed to assure compliance with accounting standards and applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Audit Committee’sCommittee's considerations and discussions with management and our independent registered public accounting firm do not assure that our financial statements are presented in accordance with US GAAP, that the audit of our financial statements has been carried out in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), or that our independent auditors are in fact “independent.”

"independent."

The Audit Committee receives regular reports from our Compliance OfficerDirectors with respect to matters coming within the scope of our EmployeeAssociate Code of Business Conduct. Our Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officers have each agreed to be bound by our EmployeeAssociate Code of Business Conduct and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act mandated Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers as a Special Supplement to our EmployeeAssociate Code of Business Conduct. We have also implemented and applied our EmployeeAssociate Code of Business Conduct throughout our Company. We have also implemented procedures for the receipt of complaints concerning our accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing practices, including the confidential, anonymous submission by our employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing practices.

Audit Committee

Eileen A. Mallesch, Chairperson

Robert E. Baker

David J. D'Antoni
Kym M. Hubbard
David R. Meuse

Paul

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm's Audit and Other Services Fees
Ernst & Young LLP served as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. It is anticipated that representatives of Ernst & Young LLP will be present at the Annual Meeting and will have an opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so. Such representatives will be available to respond to appropriate questions. The Audit Committee has selected Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2017. See "Proposal Three: Ratification of Selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company's Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm."
All services to be provided by Ernst & Young LLP are pre-approved by the Audit Committee, including audit services, audit-related services, tax services and certain other services. See below "Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures." Aggregate fees billed to or incurred by the Company for services performed for the years ending December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, by Ernst & Young LLP were as follows:
  2016 2015
Audit fees (1)
 $1,749,927
 $1,724,075
Audit related fees —
 —
Tax fees (2)(3)
 52,212
 68,787
All other fees 
 —
 —
Total (4)
 $1,802,139
 $1,792,862
     
(1)  Includes services rendered for the audit of our annual financial statements, review of financial statements included in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other audit services normally provided by Ernst & Young LLP in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.
(2) The Audit Committee has considered whether the provision of these services is compatible with maintaining the independence of our registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee must pre-approve any non-audit services performed by our independent registered public accounting firm to the extent such services are not prohibited by law from being performed by such independent registered public accounting firm. See below "Audit Committee's Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures."
(3)  Includes services for tax research and compliance.
(4)  All Ernst & Young LLP fees are on a State Auto Group basis.


Audit Committee's Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures
The Audit Committee has adopted a policy under which audit and non-audit services to be rendered by our independent registered public accounting firm are pre-approved. The Audit Committee's policy is to pre-approve all auditing services and our use of the independent public accountants to perform any non-audit or tax services which are not prohibited by Section 10A(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, subject to the de minimus exception for non-audit services described in Section 10A(i)(1)(B) of such Act. No services were provided by Ernst & Young LLP in 2016 or 2015 that were approved by the Audit Committee under SEC Regulation S-X Section 2-01(c)(7)(i)(C) (which addresses certain services considered de minimus approved by the Audit Committee after such services have been performed).


COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MATTERS
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
The Compensation Committee currently consists of the following four members of our Board of Directors: Chairperson Robert E. Baker; Eileen A. Mallesch; Thomas E. Markert; and S. Williams

Elaine Roberts. None of the members of the Compensation Committee is, or was, an officer or employee of our Company or any of our subsidiaries or of State Auto Mutual. Also, during 2016 none of our executive officers served as a member of a compensation committee or as a director of any entity for which any of our directors served as an executive officer.

PRINCIPAL HOLDERS
Compensation Committee Report
The Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors oversees our compensation programs on behalf of our Board. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Compensation Committee reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis set forth in this Proxy Statement. Based upon the review and discussions referred to above, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 2016 fiscal year and in this Proxy Statement.
Compensation Committee
Robert E. Baker, Chairperson
Eileen A. Mallesch
Thomas E. Markert
S. Elaine Roberts


COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the compensation program for our Named Executive Officers ("NEOs").
Executive Summary
2016 Compensation Summary
Base Salary. The salaries of our NEOs increased by approximately 3% in 2016, which is consistent with the practices of other financial services and insurance companies.
Short-Term Cash Compensation. None of the NEOs earned a performance bonus award for 2016 under the State Auto Financial Corporation One Team Incentive Plan ("OTIP"). The Compensation Committee awarded a discretionary bonus to each NEO under the OTIP in an amount equal to 30% of their OTIP target performance bonus award for 2016 in recognition of external factors and their respective contributions in implementing foundational changes that the Compensation Committee believes will position the Company to achieve improved results and deliver shareholder value over the long-term despite the Company’s 2016 results.
Performance Award Units. In 2016, we awarded cash-based performance award units ("PAUs") to our NEOs for the 2016-2018 performance period under the State Auto Financial Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended ("Existing LTIP").
Equity Compensation. In 2016, we awarded stock options and restricted common shares to our NEOs under the State Auto Financial Corporation 2009 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended ("2009 Equity Plan").
The following table shows for each NEO: (i) the targeted performance bonus award payout under the OTIP for 2016 and the actual discretionary bonus award payout under the OTIP for 2016; (ii) the targeted value of the PAUs granted for the 2014-2016 performance period and the amount accrued by the Company for the PAUs granted for the 2014-2016 performance period; and (iii) the targeted value of the equity compensation awarded to our NEOs in 2016 and the value of the equity compensation awarded to our NEOs in 2016 as of December 31, 2016.
  
Short-Term Incentive
Compensation
 PAUs 
Equity
Compensation
 TOTAL
  Target Actual Target Accrued Target Value Target Value
Michael E. LaRocco
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
 $875,000
 $262,500
 — — $428,750
 $371,273
 $1,303,750
 $633,773
Steven E. English
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
 $359,213
 $107,764
 $219,375
 $72,394
 $134,106
 $116,139
 $712,694
 $296,297
Jessica E. Clark
Senior Vice President, Director of Commercial and Specialty Lines
 $341,319
 $102,396
 $158,438
 $144,179
 $119,462
 $103,453
 $619,219
 $350,028
Kim B. Garland
Senior Vice President, Director of Standard Lines
 $341,305
 $102,392
 — — $119,457
 $103,453
 $460,762
 $205,845
Paul M. Stachura
Senior Vice President, Chief CARE Officer
 $210,142
 $63,043
 — — $86,923
 $75,282
 $297,065
 $138,325


Impact of State Auto Group on Compensation of NEOs
Our executive compensation program reflects our corporate and management structure and our relationship with State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates. The Company and our subsidiaries operate and manage our businesses together with State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates under various pooling, management and cost sharing agreements under the leadership and direction of the same senior management team. See below "Related Person Transactions—Transactions Involving State Auto Mutual" for a discussion of these agreements.
As a result, our NEOs are also officers of State Auto Mutual and provide services to the Company, our subsidiaries, State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates (e.g., Mr. LaRocco serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of both the Company and State Auto Mutual). Therefore, when determining the compensation of our NEOs, the Committee takes into account the services our NEOs perform for the Company and its subsidiaries and the services they perform for State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates. In 2016 and prior years, the Committee targeted the total amount of each element of compensation payable to our NEOs at or close to the median compensation level in our competitive market, which we define as insurance companies similar in size to the State Auto Group, as opposed to insurance companies similar in size to the Company (See below "How the Amount of Executive Compensation is Determined—Benchmarking of Executive Compensation Program Elements"). In addition, the performance measures applicable to the OTIP performance bonus award and the PAUs awarded to our NEOs in 2016 are based on the performance of the State Auto Group, except for Ms. Clark whose PAU awards are based on the performance of our specialty group and the State Auto Group. The charts below set forth the total revenues and total assets of the median company within the NEO Peer Group (as defined below in "How the Amount of Executive Compensation is Determined—Benchmarking of Executive Compensation Program Elements") and the Company and the total net written premiums and total admitted assets of the State Auto Group, in each case for the year ended and at December 31, 2015 (the companies included in the NEO Peer Group used for 2016 compensation decisions were selected based on 2015 financial data).
proxygraphs2rgb17.jpg
proxygraphs2rgb18.jpg
Because our NEOs perform services for the Company and its subsidiaries and State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates, we generally allocated the compensation expenses in 2016 for such services as follows: 65% to the Company and its subsidiaries and 35% to State Auto Mutual and certain of its other subsidiaries and affiliates. The compensation of our NEOs as disclosed in this Proxy Statement, however, includes all compensation expenses for the services performed by our NEOs for the Company, State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group. As a result, any analysis conducted regarding the Company


and its peers based on the compensation disclosed in this Proxy Statement should consider that such disclosure includes compensation provided to our NEOs for services they performed for State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group. The following table allocates the compensation reported for each NEO in the "Total" column of the Summary Compensation Table of this Proxy Statement between the Company, on the one hand, and State Auto Mutual and certain of its other subsidiaries and affiliates, on the other hand, based on the compensation expense allocation in effect on December 31, 2016 (i.e., 65% to the Company and 35% to State Auto Mutual and certain of its other subsidiaries and affiliates):
  2016 2015 2014
State Auto
Financial
 
State Auto
Mutual
 
State Auto
Financial
 
State Auto
Mutual
 
State Auto
Financial
 
State Auto
Mutual
Michael E. LaRocco $1,100,657
 $592,662
 $951,113
 $512,138
 —
 —
Steven E. English $577,727
 $311,084
 $587,818
 $316,518
 $963,162
 $518,626
Jessica E. Clark $515,857
 $277,769
 $755,662
 $406,895
 $802,895
 $432,238
Kim B. Garland $497,351
 $267,805
 $476,452
 $256,551
 —
 —
Paul M. Stachura $392,611
 $211,406
 —
 —
 —
 —
Pay for Performance
The Compensation Committee conducted a pay for performance analysis comparing (i) the total realizable pay earned by our CEO over the five-year period ended December 31, 2015, to the total realizable pay earned by the CEOs of each member of the NEO Peer Group over that period, and (ii) the total shareholder return ("TSR"), premium growth, GAAP combined ratio, total equity growth and return on equity of the Company over the five-year period ended December 31, 2015, to the TSR, premium growth, GAAP combined ratio, total equity growth and return on equity of the members of the NEO Peer Group over that period.
The total realizable pay used in our pay for performance analysis includes:
base salary earned during the five-year period;
actual annual cash bonuses earned during the period;
value of cash incentives earned for multi-year performance plans that began and ended during the period;
the vesting date value (as opposed to grant date value) of service-based restricted common share awards granted during the period and the value of any unvested restricted common share awards made during the period based on the Company’s stock price as of December 31, 2015; and
any exercise gains on options granted during the period and the paper value of any gains on any unexercised options received during the period based on the Company’s stock price as of December 31, 2015.
Based on input from its compensation consultant, Pay Governance LLC, the Compensation Committee concluded that total realizable pay provides a more accurate basis for comparing the historical alignment of pay and performance than the information reported in the Summary Compensation Table. Unlike the amounts reported in the Summary Compensation Table, total realizable pay increases or decreases depending on our annual and long-term results and increases or decreases in our stock price and, as a result, better reflects the Company's performance in comparison to the results of our peers.
The Compensation Committee uses a five-year period in its analysis to provide a long-term perspective and includes multiple complete PAU performance periods. The Compensation Committee uses the NEO Peer Group (which includes insurance companies comparable to the State Auto Group in terms of both size and type of business) in its analysis because the Compensation Committee (i) takes into account the services our CEO performs for the Company and the services he performs for State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group when determining the amount of his compensation and (ii) targets the total amount of each element of compensation payable to our CEO at or close to the median compensation level in our competitive market, which we define as insurance companies similar in size to the State Auto Group (See below "How the Amount of Executive Compensation is Determined—Benchmarking of Executive Compensation Program Elements" of this Proxy Statement for a more detailed description of the NEO Peer Group).
As shown in the chart below, (i) the total realizable pay earned by our CEO during the five-year period ended December 31, 2015, placed the Company in the 17th percentile when compared to the NEO Peer Group (the individual members of which are identified as diamonds in the chart below) and (ii) the TSR of the Company over the five-year period ended December 31, 2015, placed the Company in the 4th percentile when compared to the NEO Peer Group.


proxygraphs3rgba01.jpg
The premium growth, GAAP combined ratio, total equity growth and return on equity of the Company over the five-year period ended December 31, 2015, placed the Company in the 42nd percentile, 4th percentile, 51st percentile and 30th percentile, respectively, when compared to the NEO Peer Group. Based on the percentile rankings of the Company yielded by our pay for performance analysis, both the Compensation Committee and Pay Governance LLC concluded that the compensation we paid to our CEO for the five-year period ended December 31, 2015, was aligned with our performance for the period.
2016 "Say-on-Pay" Vote
We held our annual shareholder advisory vote regarding the compensation of our NEOs, commonly referred to as a "say-on-pay" vote, at our 2016 annual meeting of shareholders. Our shareholders overwhelmingly approved the compensation of our NEOs, with more than 99% of the votes cast in favor of our 2016 "say-on-pay" resolution. Since our 2016 annual meeting of shareholders, the Compensation Committee has considered the results of the 2016 "say-on-pay" vote in its evaluation of our executive compensation programs and practices. Based on the strong support our shareholders expressed at our 2016 annual meeting of shareholders, the Compensation Committee did not make any changes to our executive compensation program as a result of the 2016 "say-on-pay" vote.
Compensation Policies and Practices
We endeavor to maintain governance practices that are consistent with what we believe represent current best practices, including with respect to the oversight of our executive compensation program. Our compensation policies and practices include the following:
•
No Tax Gross-Up Payments in Change of Control Agreements. The executive change of control agreements between the Company and our NEOs do not entitle our NEOs to any tax gross-up payments (See below "Agreements with Named Executive Officers").
Acceleration of Vesting of Equity Awards Subject to "Double Trigger." The 2009 Equity Plan and the change of control agreements with our NEOs permit the accelerated vesting of equity awards upon a change of control only if the recipient’s employment with the Company terminates within one year of the change of control, provided, that if the change of control involves a change in the ownership of the Company and the successor entity does not provide benefits to the recipient of equal or greater value at the time of the change of control transaction, the award will automatically vest upon the closing of the transaction.
•
Stock Ownership Holding Periods. The Company's Ownership Guidelines (as defined below in "Stock Ownership Guidelines") require our Section 16 officers to hold the net amount of common shares obtained through the exercise of stock options or vesting of restricted common shares until the date on which the officer satisfies the Ownership Target Amounts (as defined below in "Stock Ownership Guidelines").


Anti-Hedging Policy. All Company employees, including our NEOs, and members of the Board are subject to a Company policy that prohibits them from engaging in certain hedging transactions with respect to Company securities held by them, including short sales and other transactions that shift the economic consequences of ownership of Company securities to a third party. Our executive officers and members of the Board are also subject to a Company policy that prohibits them from holding Company securities in a margin account or otherwise pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan.
Independent Compensation Consultant. The Compensation Committee's independent compensation consultant, Pay Governance LLC, is engaged directly by the Compensation Committee and performs services solely for the Compensation Committee.
•
"Clawback" Obligations Imposed in Change of Control Agreements and Clawback Policy. The employment agreement and executive change of control agreement between the Company and Mr. LaRocco and the executive change of control agreements between the Company and our other NEOs include a "clawback" provision that authorizes the Board to require the NEO to repay all or any portion of the severance benefits paid to the NEO thereunder upon the occurrence of the events described below in "Agreements with Named Executive Officers." If the Board determines that the NEO engaged in fraudulent conduct, the Board must seek repayment of such severance benefits. In addition, we adopted a clawback policy in March 2016 which provides that if the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement or amend previously filed financial statements to correct errors to those financial statements, the Company will seek to recover from any current and future Section 16 officer of the Company the portion of pre-tax incentive compensation granted and paid to the officer on or after March 1, 2016, in excess of what should have been paid to the officer if the payment was determined based on the restated or amended financial statements.
Limited Committee Discretion to Increase Awards. The Compensation Committee may not increase awards under our short-term or long-term incentive plans, provided that the Compensation Committee may award discretionary bonuses to our NEOs under the OTIP. The Compensation Committee retains the discretion to decrease awards under our short-term and long-term incentive plans.
No Repricing of Underwater Stock Options. As stated in the 2009 Equity Plan, the Company will not reprice, replace or repurchase underwater stock options without first obtaining shareholder approval.
Executive Compensation Philosophy
The Compensation Committee and management believe that the insurance industry is radically transforming and experiencing a rapid influx of new "non-traditional insurance" entities into the marketplace. This industry transformation, together with the Company's need to effectively adapt to the evolving and increasingly competitive marketplace, have caused the Compensation Committee to reconsider its executive compensation philosophy and objectives. As a result, they have worked to restructure our executive compensation program by making changes to our approach for attracting, rewarding, incentivizing and retaining executive talent. The Company began to implement these changes in 2016 by replacing the Leadership Bonus Plan ("LBP") with the OTIP, and we hope to complete the restructuring of our executive compensation program in 2017 by replacing the Existing LTIP and the 2009 Equity Plan with the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, subject to shareholder approval (as discussed in Proposal Two), and aligning the performance measures and performance goals applicable to the awards under the OTIP with the performance measures and performance goals applicable to the awards under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Now, more than ever, our long-term success depends on our ability to effectively recruit, retain and reward top talent. Our restructured executive compensation program will seek to promote the following philosophy and objectives:
Incentivize our Executives to Deliver Exceptional Results. The executive compensation program that the Compensation Committee intends to implement if our shareholders adopt the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan at the Annual Meeting would modify the long-term equity compensation opportunity awarded to our executives by awarding stock-settled performance units subject to our achievement of profitable growth instead of service-based stock options and restricted stock. The maximum long-term compensation opportunities that the Compensation Committee contemplates providing under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan would exceed the maximum long-term compensation opportunities historically offered by traditional P&C insurers, but only when our management team delivers exceptional results.  
Reward Profitable Growth. The Compensation Committee has historically utilized peer group and insurance industry compensation data to evaluate the competitiveness of the elements of our executive compensation program and to determine the value of the PAUs ultimately earned by our NEOs. As a result of the rapidly changing conditions, new entrants in the industry and a change in consumer expectations regarding product and delivery, the Compensation Committee believes that the Company now needs to attract and retain executive talent from both within and outside the


insurance industry. In addition, the Compensation Committee wants the short-term and long-term incentive compensation awards to better focus management on achieving profitable growth. The Compensation Committee believes that profitable growth (as measured by the Company's combined ratio and net written premium growth) is the most critical result for delivering long-term success and shareholder value. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee intends to value the short-term and long-term incentive compensation awarded to our executives in 2017 and going forward based on the extent to which we achieve profitable growth instead of the compensation practices or performance of peer group companies or the insurance industry. The Compensation Committee believes that subjecting all incentive compensation awards to performance measures based on profitable growth will (i) enhance the alignment between pay and performance, (ii) solidify our One Team structure, (iii) allow us to remain competitive with other industries for top talent, (iv) increase accountability among our management team, (v) improve our ability to effectively adapt to the evolving and increasingly competitive insurance industry, and (vi) align executive compensation with the value delivered to shareholders.
•
Increase Executive Ownership of Common Shares. Our restructured executive compensation program places a renewed focus on common share ownership within our management team, which we believe will more directly align the interests of management with the interests of our shareholders. We hope to achieve increased executive ownership of our common shares through the award of stock-settled performance units pursuant to the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as discussed in Proposal Two).
Each element of our executive compensation program serves a unique role in establishing an appropriate balance between the rewards for short-term and long-term performance that we believe will support our efforts to improve our performance and increase the price of our common shares over the long-term. (See below "2016 Executive Compensation Program Elements.")
How the Amount of Executive Compensation is Determined
Role of Compensation Committee, Senior Management, Compensation Consultants and Other Advisors
In carrying out its responsibilities, the Compensation Committee requests and receives regular input and recommendations from the Board, management, the Board of Directors and Compensation Committee of State Auto Mutual, an executive compensation consultant and other advisors. The Compensation Committee also regularly engages in discussions and continuing education to better understand compensation trends, regulatory developments relating to compensation issues and the Company’s compensation issues and objectives. Management informs and assists the Compensation Committee in establishing and monitoring performance goals, and in refining our executive compensation program.
As a result of the sharing of services and compensation expenses among the Company and the other members of the State Auto Group (See above "Executive Summary—Impact of State Auto Group on Compensation of NEOs"), the Board of Directors and Compensation Committee of State Auto Mutual are involved in the performance evaluation process of our CEO. In addition, the members of State Auto Mutual's Compensation Committee attend the meetings of the STFC Compensation Committee (See above "Corporate Governance and Board of Directors—Committees of the Board of Directors.")
In making compensation decisions related to both the form and the amount of compensation, the Compensation Committee has historically relied upon competitive information obtained from its compensation consultant. In 2016, the Compensation Committee engaged and utilized the services of Pay Governance LLC, a compensation consultant. The only services Pay Governance LLC performs for STFC are services for the Compensation Committee. During 2016, Pay Governance LLC attended and participated in Compensation Committee meetings and advised the Compensation Committee regarding (i) the effectiveness, competitiveness and design of our overall executive compensation program, its policies and practices and specific compensation packages for our NEOs and other executives, (ii) the competitiveness of compensation to our outside directors in comparison to their peers at similar public companies, (iii) the composition of the NEO Peer Group, (iv) the content and form of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, (v) the alignment between the compensation of our NEOs and our performance, (vi) special requests of the Compensation Committee with respect to issues relating to the Company's executive compensation program, and (vii)  long-term incentive plan design proposals. During 2016, the Company did not engage Pay Governance LLC or its affiliates for any services beyond its support of the Compensation Committee.
In 2016, the Compensation Committee requested and received completed questionnaires from Pay Governance LLC and the Compensation Committee's outside legal counsel relating to their respective independence. Based on the completed questionnaires and other factors, the Compensation Committee has confirmed the independence of Pay Governance LLC and the Compensation Committee’s outside legal counsel and determined that its engagement of Pay Governance LLC and the Compensation Committee's outside legal counsel did not raise any conflict of interest.


Benchmarking of Executive Compensation Program Elements
In 2016 and prior years, the Compensation Committee has considered data from the following sources, along with an analysis of such data provided by its compensation consultant, to determine what constitutes competitive compensation for our NEOs:
proxy statements filed by other publicly-held insurance companies comparable to the State Auto Group in terms of both size and type of business (the "NEO Peer Group"); and
pay surveys of the insurance and financial services industry relating to public, private and mutually-owned insurance companies and public and private financial services companies (the "Survey Data").
As discussed above in "Executive Compensation Philosophy," the Compensation Committee has determined that the value of short-term and long-term incentive compensation awarded to our executives in 2017 and going forward should be based on the extent to which we achieve profitable growth as opposed to the compensation practices or the performance of peer companies, within the insurance industry. Accordingly, in 2017 and beyond, the Compensation Committee intends to restrict its use of benchmarking and compensation data to reviewing base salaries.
NEO Peer Group
The Compensation Committee, with input from its compensation consultant and management, approves property and casualty insurance companies to be part of the NEO Peer Group based on (i) their status as public companies and (ii) whether their size and business overlap with the State Auto Group, which is larger than the Company. Public companies are selected because they are required to publicly disclose detailed information in their SEC filings regarding the compensation of their NEOs and their executive compensation programs, which allows us to compare the competitiveness of the compensation of our NEOs and executive compensation program with those of our public company competitors. In considering business overlap, companies are selected that have a significant portion of their business in personal and commercial automobile, homeowners, specialty, workers' compensation and commercial property and casualty insurance. The Compensation Committee considers premium volume, total assets, market capitalization and number of employees when determining whether a company's size overlaps with the State Auto Group. Companies similar in size to the State Auto Group are selected because our NEOs are also officers of State Auto Mutual and provide services to our Company, State Auto Mutual and the other members of the State Auto Group. Some of the companies in the NEO Peer Group, however, are substantially larger than the State Auto Group while others are smaller. Normally, companies included in the NEO Peer Group are within one-half to two times the size of State Auto Group. The size of the median company within the NEO Peer Group is comparable to the State Auto Group. The members of the NEO Peer Group change periodically because of mergers, acquisitions, start-ups, spin offs and similar transactions.
The NEO Peer Group used for 2016 compensation decisions was comprised of the following 18 companies:
Alleghany CorporationAmTrust Financial Services Inc.Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.
Cincinnati Financial CorporationErie Indemnity CompanyHorace Mann Educators Corporation
Infinity Property & Casualty CorporationKemper CorporationMercury General Corporation
Old Republic International CorporationOneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd.RLI Corp.
Safety Insurance Group, Inc.Selective Insurance Group Inc.The Hanover Insurance Group
The Navigators Group, Inc.United Fire Group, Inc.White Mountains Insurance Group
Survey Data
The Survey Data complements the NEO Peer Group information by providing broader comparisons, which allows us to more comprehensively assess the compensation we pay to our executive officers relative to the compensation paid in the insurance and financial services industry to similar positions.
Use of Compensation Data
When setting base salaries, short-term and long-term incentive compensation, we have typically used NEO Peer Group data that relates to a comparable position at the Company and Survey Data that relates to individuals in similar positions at insurers similar in size to the State Auto Group (which we refer to as our "competitive market"). We have used NEO Peer Group data to benchmark the compensation of some NEOs and Survey Data to benchmark the compensation of our NEOs and other executives. If relevant data is available from both the NEO Peer Group and the Survey Data for a position, we have averaged the results to determine the benchmark. For example, if the median level of base salary for chief executive officers reported by the NEO Peer Group and


the Survey Data was $850,000 and $900,000, respectively, we would average the two results to establish a median base salary target of $875,000.
The Compensation Committee has typically targeted the total amount of compensation payable to our NEOs at or close to the median compensation level in the competitive market by setting the target amount of each element of compensation at or near the median level of compensation in the competitive market. Because it believes superior performance should be rewarded, the Compensation Committee has typically provided our NEOs with the opportunity to earn total compensation in the 75th percentile (or higher) of the competitive market if performance significantly exceeds target results. Conversely, if performance is substantially below target or planned results, the Compensation Committee typically believes NEOs should receive substantially less than the median level of total compensation in the competitive market (i.e., in the bottom quartile). Although the Company’s performance was below target and planned results in 2016, the Compensation Committee deviated from its typical practice and awarded a discretionary bonus to each NEO, as well as current associates, in recognition of external factors and their respective contributions in implementing foundational changes that the Compensation Committee believes will position the Company to achieve improved results and shareholder value over the long-term despite the Company’s 2016 results. The total amount of compensation that the Compensation Committee targeted as payable to each of our NEOs for 2016 was reasonably competitive with the median level of compensation in the NEO Peer Group and the Survey Data. Certain compensation elements for Mr. LaRocco, such as base salary, retirement benefits, employee benefits and executive perquisites, are subject to the terms of his employment agreement (See below "Agreements with Named Executive Officers—LaRocco Employment Agreement").
The Compensation Committee has also used the compensation data disclosed in the proxy statements of members of the NEO Peer Group to conduct pay for performance comparisons that help it (i) understand the expectations of companies within the NEO Peer Group regarding incentive payouts and (ii) evaluate our executive compensation program and practices. The Compensation Committee has also used the Survey Data, in combination with information for the NEO Peer Group, to assess competitive pay levels and evaluate our executive compensation program and practices.
Use of Tally Sheets
The Compensation Committee uses tally sheets in its annual review of NEO compensation to review total compensation and each element of compensation provided to our NEOs. The tally sheets used by the Compensation Committee in its review of NEO compensation for 2016: (i) listed each individual element of compensation along with the amount earned in each category for 2013, 2014 and 2015; (ii) listed the target and maximum amounts of incentive compensation payable for 2015; and (iii) summarized the current value of employee benefits and perquisites. The tally sheets provide a useful perspective on the total value of NEO compensation and show how total compensation changes from year to year. The Compensation Committee also used tally sheets to evaluate each NEO's total compensation in 2017.
2016 Executive Compensation Program Elements
We believe that the mix of elements in our executive compensation program supports its objectives and provides appropriate reward opportunities. Each of these elements is discussed separately below, other than employee benefits which we offer to our NEOs on the same basis as all of our other employees.
The Company applies the following principles in designing our executive compensation program to achieve the objectives of our executive compensation program:
The Company does not have a prescribed mix between cash and non-cash compensation and short-term and long-term compensation (except for how it allocates long-term compensation between the various reward elements);
Neither the Compensation Committee nor the CEO considers the other elements of compensation available to NEOs, such as salary increases, annual bonuses and equity ownership, when setting any one element; and
Awards made in prior years or in other parts of our compensation program have not influenced the opportunities or payments made available in the current year.
Some of our NEOs' compensation is governed by the terms of specific agreements between the NEO and the Company. (See below "Agreements with Named Executive Officers.")
The following chart shows the elements of our executive compensation program for 2016 (except for perquisites, which are minimal in nature).


proxygraphs1rgb04.jpg
*In 2016, all of the NEOs were granted 20% of their total long-term incentive opportunity in the form of stock options, 65% in the form of target PAUs and 15% in the form of restricted common shares. The PAUs awarded in 2016 to the NEOs (other than Ms. Clark) are valued based on the achievement of three equally weighted performance measures: (i) statutory combined ratio for the State Auto Group; (ii) the State Auto Group's net written premium growth; and (iii) the State Auto Group's surplus growth. The PAUs awarded to Ms. Clark in 2016 are valued based on the achievement of three equally weighted performance measures: (i) statutory combined ratio for our specialty group; (ii) gross written premium growth for our specialty group; and (iii) surplus growth for the State Auto Group.
Base Salary
Base Salary Adjustment Process
The Compensation Committee believes that in order for the Company to attract and retain the caliber of executives it needs to achieve both short-term and long-term success it is critical for the Company to provide the NEOs with base salaries competitive with those provided to executives in our competitive market with similar skills, competencies, experience and levels of responsibility. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee may adjust the amount of a NEO's base salary based on the median level of base salary for the NEO in our competitive market or to reflect a change in the NEO's scope of responsibility or unique skills or expertise. These adjustments are subject to an aggregate base salary merit increase budget set by the Company based on our anticipated cost structure.
2016 Base Salaries of NEOs
The Compensation Committee set the 2016 base salaries of the NEOs in March 2016 as follows. The adjustments were based on: (i) an evaluation of each individual’s performance; (ii) increases in the median base salaries for individuals in similar roles at peer companies and other insurers comparable in size to the State Auto Group; and (iii) the Company’s overall merit increase budget and policies.
  2015 Base Salary ($) 2016 Base Salary ($) Increase (%)
Michael E. LaRocco 850,000 875,000 2.9
Steven E. English 465,000 478,950 3.0
Jessica E. Clark 440,000 455,092 3.4
Kim B. Garland 440,000 455,073 3.4
Paul M. Stachura 375,000 382,076 1.9


Short-Term Incentive Compensation
On March 4, 2016, the Board of Directors approved the terms of the State Auto Financial Corporation One Team Incentive Plan or "OTIP." Upon the approval of the OTIP by the Company's shareholders at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the OTIP replaced the LBP as the Company's annual cash incentive plan. The purposes of the OTIP are: (i) to improve our long-term profitable growth and earnings by providing incentives and rewards to all employees who achieve the stated performance goals and strategic objectives which contribute significantly to the achievement of profitable growth; (ii) to focus employees on the key measures that align and drive superior performance and value over the long term; and (iii) to assist us in recruiting and maintaining highly talented associates by providing competitive total rewards. In March 2016, the Compensation Committee granted performance bonus awards under the OTIP to the NEOs (as discussed below in "OTIP Performance Bonus Awards"). After determining that the NEOs would not earn any performance bonus award under the OTIP for 2016, the Compensation Committee awarded discretionary bonuses to the NEOs under the OTIP in an amount equal to 30% of their respective target performance bonus award for 2016 (as discussed below in "OTIP Discretionary Bonus Awards").
OTIP Performance Bonus Awards
Basis for OTIP Performance Bonus Awards
The OTIP provides for an annual cash incentive bonus opportunity for all of the Company's regular, active employees based upon the achievement of specified objective annual performance goals. The OTIP is designed to advance the interests of the Company and our shareholders by providing employees with a performance bonus for achieving the Company's strategic objectives. Unlike the LBP, which consisted of both a Company performance component and an individual performance component, the OTIP performance bonus awards consisted solely of a Company performance component in 2016, which is consistent with our executive compensation program objective of better focusing management on achieving the results we believe are most critical for delivering long-term success and shareholder value.
OTIP Performance Bonus Award Process
Performance bonus awards under the OTIP consist of cash amounts payable upon the achievement of specified objective performance goals during a specified performance period. The performance goals for OTIP performance bonus awards are based upon the achievement of one or more of the following performance measures of the Company (and/or one or more business segments or subgroups of the Company) over the performance period: (i) combined ratio; (ii) premium growth; and (iii) policies in force. Most performance periods will begin on the first day of the Company’s fiscal year and end on the last day of that year. At the beginning of a performance period for a given OTIP performance bonus award, the Compensation Committee selects the performance measures for the award, establishes the threshold, target and maximum performance goals for each performance measure and determines the amounts payable to each NEO upon satisfaction of the threshold, target and maximum performance goals. After the end of the performance period, management provides the Compensation Committee with the audited financial results achieved by the Company for each performance measure selected by the Compensation Committee. Based on this information, the Compensation Committee certifies the extent to which the performance goals were achieved and determines the amount of the award that is payable. The Compensation Committee has the discretion to determine that the actual amount paid with respect to an OTIP performance bonus award will be less than (but not greater than) the amount earned by the NEOs.
2016 OTIP Performance Bonus Awards
The following table shows the threshold, target and maximum amounts of the 2016 OTIP performance bonus awards, both as a percentage of the NEO's annual base salary and as a dollar amount, for each of the NEOs based on the potential achievement of the Company's performance goals.
  Threshold Target Maximum
  
% of
Salary
 
Dollar
Amount
 
% of
Salary
 
Dollar
Amount
 
% of
Salary
 
Dollar
Amount
Michael E. LaRocco 10.0 $87,500 100.0 $875,000 200.0 $1,750,000
Steven E. English 7.5 $35,921 75.0 $359,213 150.0 $718,426
Jessica E. Clark 7.5 $34,132 75.0 $341,319 150.0 $682,638
Kim B. Garland 7.5 $34,131 75.0 $341,305 150.0 $682,610
Paul M. Stachura 5.5 $21,014 55.0 $210,142 110.0 $420,284


The Compensation Committee selected combined ratio, premium growth and policies in force as the performance measures for the OTIP performance bonus awards for each of the NEOs in 2016. The Compensation Committee selected these performance measures for our NEOs because it believes they: (i) represent the results that we believe to be the most critical for delivering long-term success and shareholder value; and (ii) enhance alignment between pay and performance.
"combined ratio" is a measure of the State Auto Group’s underwriting profitability and is equal to the sum of (i) the State Auto Group's loss and loss adjustment expense ratio (i.e., losses and loss expenses as a percentage of net earned premium) and (ii) the State Auto Group's expense ratio (i.e., underwriting expenses and miscellaneous expenses offset by miscellaneous income as a percentage of net written premium), in each case based upon statutory accounting principles. Combined ratio includes positive or negative reserve development from prior years. Combined ratio is expressed as a percentage, and a combined ratio of less than 100% indicates underwriting profitability.
"premium growth" is a measure of the growth in our total direct written premium volume from existing sources and merger and acquisitions.
"policies in force" is the number of policies in effect at any given time.
The following table shows the threshold, target and maximum payout percentages and performance goals established for each performance measure applicable to our NEOs' 2016 OTIP performance bonus awards:
  Combined Ratio Premium Growth Policies in Force
Payout
as (%)
of Target
 
Performance
Goal
(%)
 
Payout
as (%)
of Target
 
Performance
Goal
(%)
 
Payout
as (%)
of Target
 
Performance
Goal
(%)
Threshold 10 102.8 10 (1.6) 10 (5.5)
Target 100 98.3 100 3.5 100 (2.3)
Maximum 200 94.9 200 10.0 200 0.7
Target performance is equal to the goal for the financial measure set forth in the 2016 business plan presented by management and approved by the Board in March 2016 following review and discussion of the business plan with the Board of Directors of State Auto Mutual. The Compensation Committee believes that target performance is reasonable to attain but includes an element of "stretch" performance. Maximum performance goals are intended to reflect superior performance and, although possible, may be extremely difficult to attain. Threshold performance, which the Compensation Committee views as a minimally acceptable level of performance, is the lowest level of performance meriting any form of financial reward, provided that no payout is payable to the NEOs pursuant to the 2016 OTIP performance bonus awards if the combined ratio for 2016 is equal or greater than 105%. The Compensation Committee recognizes that target performance may not be attained and believes that providing for payments to be made for attaining a threshold level of profitability mitigates the incentive for NEOs and others to take excessive risks to achieve the target level of performance. The Compensation Committee retains the power to reduce, but not increase, the amounts payable to the NEOs pursuant to OTIP performance bonus awards. The Compensation Committee can also award discretionary bonuses under the OTIP. (See below "Tax Deductibility of Executive Compensation.")
The following table shows (i) the result achieved for each Company performance measure applicable to our NEOs' 2016 OTIP performance bonus awards, (ii) the percentage payout for that result relative to the target payout for that performance measure, (iii) the weight of each such performance measure under the OTIP performance bonus award and (iv) the value of the actual payout for the result achieved as a percentage of the NEO's target bonus under the OTIP performance bonus award. The Compensation Committee assigned a greater weight to combined ratio to emphasize the Company's focus on profitability and assigned an equal weight to the two growth measures (premium growth and policies in force).
Performance Measure 2016 Result 
% of Target Payout for Result (1)
 Weight 
Payout Value
(% of Target) (1)
Combined Ratio 106.8% —% 0.6 —%
Premium Growth (0.8)% 22.8% 0.2 —%
Policies in Force (3.9)% 55.7% 0.2 —%
         
(1) Although the Company attained the threshold performance goals for both the premium growth and policies in force performance measures, the NEOs did not receive any payout under their respective 2016 OTIP performance bonus awards because the combined ratio for 2016 exceeded 105.0%.


OTIP Discretionary Bonus Awards
In connection with its determination that the NEOs would not earn any performance bonus award under the OTIP for 2016, the Compensation Committee considered external factors and the respective contributions of the NEOs with respect to various challenging actions taken by the Company in 2016 that we believe will position the Company to achieve improved results and deliver value to shareholders over the long-term despite the Company’s 2016 results. These actions included strengthening reserves across the Company’s auto lines of business, incurring a $4 million write-off relating to an IT investment and approving increased IT spending to rapidly implement needed improvements to the Company’s infrastructure. In recognition of those contributions, the Compensation Committee awarded discretionary bonuses to the NEOs under the OTIP in an amount equal to 30% of their respective target performance bonus award for 2016.
The following table shows the amount of short-term cash incentive compensation paid to each NEO for 2016 under the OTIP in the form of a discretionary bonus.
  
Total
OTIP
Discretionary Bonus ($)
 
Total
OTIP
Bonus (1)
Michael E. LaRocco 262,500 30.0%
Steven E. English 107,764 30.0%
Jessica E. Clark 102,396 30.0%
Kim B. Garland 102,392 30.0%
Paul M. Stachura 63,043 30.0%
 
 (1)  Expressed as a percentage of the NEO's "target" performance bonus award under the OTIP where target is set at 100.0%.
Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation
2016 Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation Awards
In 2016, the Compensation Committee awarded long-term incentive compensation to our NEOs in the form of stock options and restricted common shares under the 2009 Equity Plan and PAUs under the Existing LTIP. The Compensation Committee targeted these long-term incentive compensation awards to the NEOs at the median of long-term incentive compensation awards in our competitive market. For 2016, the Compensation Committee provided 20% of each NEO’s total long-term incentive compensation opportunity in the form of stock options, 65% in the form of target PAUs and 15% in the form of restricted common shares. The Committee established this allocation to effectively manage share usage and control the dilution of the interests of our shareholders, including our largest shareholder State Auto Mutual.
2016 Stock Option Awards
Basis for Stock Option Awards
In 2016, the Compensation Committee awarded stock options to our executives to (i) encourage business behaviors that drive appreciation in the price of our common shares over the long-term because the stock options we award have no value unless the price of the underlying common shares increases from the date of grant and (ii) help align the interests of our executives who hold stock options, including our NEOs, with the interests of our shareholders. Stock options also represent a significant element of the compensation paid to executives at many peer companies that we compete with for executive talent and build appropriate levels of common share ownership among our executive team. The Company has not and will not reprice or replace underwater stock options without first obtaining shareholder approval.
Stock Option Award Process
In 2016, the Compensation Committee granted stock options to our NEOs representing the number of common shares set forth in the table below. Each grant of options consisted of non-qualified stock options with a ten-year exercise period, a three-year graduated vesting schedule (i.e., one third of the total options granted vests on each anniversary of the grant date for three years) and an option exercise price equal to the closing price of our common shares on the grant date.


  2016 Stock Option Awards (# of Common Shares) Exercise Price ($)
Michael E. LaRocco 32,494 21.54
Steven E. English 10,164 21.54
Jessica E. Clark 9,054 21.54
Kim B. Garland 9,054 21.54
Paul M. Stachura 6,588 21.54
The Compensation Committee granted stock options at the same time it determined other annual awards based on the CEO's recommendations to the Compensation Committee, which the CEO determined using competitive market data. Although the Compensation Committee retains the discretion to set the terms of any options granted, including the number of options granted to any optionee, the Compensation Committee did not exercise such discretion for the 2016 stock option grants and instead implemented the CEO’s recommendations for the NEOs excluding the CEO.
The Compensation Committee determined the number of stock options granted by multiplying (i) the average daily closing price of our common shares for the prior fiscal year by (ii) a "Black-Scholes" factor. The "Black-Scholes" factor is a financial model used to determine the current value of stock options and was provided to the Company by Pay Governance LLC. Pay Governance LLC advised the Compensation Committee that this method, which is consistent with the practice the Compensation Committee used in prior years, provides stability in option grants, is similar to the practices of other companies and prevents significant fluctuation in the number of options granted that may be caused by short-term swings in stock price associated with focusing on the closing stock price for a particular day.
2016 Restricted Common Share Awards
Basis for Restricted Common Share Awards
In 2016, the Compensation Committee awarded restricted common shares to our executives to (i) reduce our usage of common shares under our equity compensation plans, (ii) align the interests of the NEOs with the interests of our shareholders and (iii) encourage retention. Restricted stock also represents a significant element of the compensation paid to executives at many peer companies with whom we compete for executive talent and builds appropriate levels of common share ownership among our executive team.
Restricted Common Share Award Process
In 2016, the Compensation Committee granted restricted common shares to our NEOs representing the number of common shares set forth in the table below. These restricted common shares vest on the third anniversary of the grant date, which enhances their encouragement of retention.
2016 Restricted Common Share Awards
(# of Common Shares)
Michael E. LaRocco7,461
Steven E. English2,334
Jessica E. Clark2,079
Kim B. Garland2,079
Paul M. Stachura1,513
The Compensation Committee granted restricted common shares at the same time it determined other annual awards based on the CEO's recommendations to the Compensation Committee, which the CEO determined using competitive market data. Although the Compensation Committee retains the discretion to set the terms of any restricted common shares granted, including the number of restricted common shares granted, the Compensation Committee did not exercise such discretion for the 2016 restricted common share grants and instead implemented the CEO's recommendations for the NEOs excluding the CEO.
The Compensation Committee determined the number of restricted common shares granted by dividing the portion of the NEO's target long-term incentive opportunity awarded in restricted common shares by the sum of (i) the average daily closing price of our common shares during the immediately preceding year and (ii) the estimated value of three years of anticipated cash dividends. Pay Governance LLC advised the Compensation Committee that this method, which is consistent with the practice the


Compensation Committee used in prior years, provides stability in restricted common share grants, is similar to the practices of other companies and prevents significant fluctuation in the number of restricted common shares granted that may be caused by short-term swings in stock price associated with focusing on the closing stock price for a particular day.
2016 Performance Award Unit Awards
Basis for PAU Awards
In 2016, the Compensation Committee awarded PAUs to our executives to (i) reward executives for achieving sustained financial results that we believe should increase the price of our common shares over the long term, (ii) balance the focus of our annual operating plan by rewarding executives for our financial results relative to the results of other property and casualty insurers, and (iii) minimize shareholder dilution as the PAUs are paid in cash.
PAU Award Process
The Compensation Committee annually awards PAUs, which are paid in cash at the end of a three-year performance period. The amount payable at the end of the performance period is determined by multiplying the number of PAUs by the "value" of the PAU at the end of the performance period. PAUs are granted with a target value of $1.00, although the final value of each PAU can range from $0.00 to $2.00 depending on our performance. The final value of the PAU awarded to our NEOs in 2016 depends on the State Auto Group's achievement of performance measures selected by the Compensation Committee compared against the results of a peer group of other property and casualty insurers during the performance period (the "LTIP Peer Group").
Each performance measure has threshold, target and maximum levels of performance. The target level for each performance measure is achieved if the State Auto Group's performance equals the median level of performance of the companies in the LTIP Peer Group for such performance measure. The maximum level for each performance measure is achieved if the State Auto Group performs at or above the 80th percentile of the LTIP Peer Group. The threshold level of performance is achieved if the State Auto Group performs at the 20th percentile. No amount is payable for a performance measure if the State Auto Group performs below the 20th percentile. For example, if at the end of the 2016–2018 performance period there are 60 insurance companies in the LTIP Peer Group, and if such companies are ranked 1 – 60 (best to worst) in average statutory combined ratio, each NEO will receive a target award if the State Auto Group’s three-year average statutory combined ratio is between the 30/31st ranked companies. A maximum award will be received if our three-year average statutory combined ratio equals or exceeds the 12th ranked company (equal to the group’s 80th percentile). Finally, a threshold award will be received if our three-year statutory combined ratio equals the 48th ranked company (or the group’s 20th percentile). The same comparison is performed for the other performance measures, with the results equally weighted to determine the final PAU value awarded to each NEO.
PAUs awarded to each of the NEOs (except for Ms. Clark) for the 2016-2018 performance period are valued based on the achievement of target results for three equally weighted performance measures: (i) statutory combined ratio for the State Auto Group; (ii) the State Auto Group's net written premium growth; and (iii) the State Auto Group's surplus growth. PAUs awarded to Ms. Clark for the 2016-2018 performance period are valued based on the achievement of three equally weighted performance measures: (i) statutory combined ratio for our specialty group; (ii) gross written premium growth for our specialty group; and (iii) surplus growth for the State Auto Group. The performance measures selected by the Compensation Committee focus on our ability to appropriately price and underwrite business, control expenses, develop new products and services, invest in assets that best balance risks and rewards and enter new markets. They also assess long-term profitability and the capital we need to underwrite future business. We believe sustained, high levels of performance in each of these areas should create value for our shareholders.
The LTIP Peer Group used to determine our achievement of (i) the surplus growth performance measure applicable to PAUs awarded to our NEOs in 2016 and (ii) the net written premium growth and statutory combined ratio performance measures applicable to PAUs awarded to all of our NEOs in 2016 except for Ms. Clark initially consisted of 45 insurance companies included in the A.M. Best Total U.S. P&C Agency Companies Composite with net written premiums ranging from $0.5 billion to $6.5 billion. The LTIP Peer Group used to determine our achievement of the direct statutory combined ratio for our specialty group and direct written premium growth for our specialty group performance measures applicable to PAUs awarded to Ms. Clark in 2016 initially consisted of 47 surplus line peers with annualized gross written premiums ranging from $165 million to $700 million.


For the 2016-2018 performance period, our NEOs received PAUs in the number and with the target, threshold and maximum values described below:
  2016 Target Units (#) 
Target Award Value
($)(1)
 
Threshold Award Value
($)(1)
 
Maximum Award Value
($) (1)
Michael E. LaRocco 796,250 796,250 318,500 1,592,500
Steven E. English 249,054 249,054 99,622 498,108
Jessica E. Clark 221,857 221,857 88,743 443,714
Kim B. Garland 221,848 221,848 88,739 443,696
Paul M. Stachura 161,428 161,428 64,571 322,856
         
(1) Units have a target value equal to $1.00, a threshold value of $0.40 and a maximum value of $2.00.
Retirement and Deferred Compensation
Retirement Plans
We maintain a defined benefit pension plan, referred to as our "Retirement Plan," to recognize the career contributions and service of our associates, assist in the retention of our employees and provide our employees with income continuity into retirement. We also maintain a non-qualified Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, referred to as our "SERP," to offset the impact of limitations imposed by tax laws on the amount of income or wages that can be considered in calculating benefits under traditional defined benefit pension plans, such as our Retirement Plan. Mr. English is the only current NEO who is eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan and SERP. The SERP enables highly compensated officers to achieve the same percentage of salary replacement as other employees upon retirement. An NEO is automatically enrolled in the SERP when his or her annual base salary exceeds the limit that can be considered in calculating benefits under the Retirement Plan. Under the Retirement Plan, an employee's period of service has a significant impact on the amount of retirement benefits they would be eligible to receive. Under the SERP, the amount of retirement benefits that an employee would be eligible to receive is determined solely by the employee’s actual period of service.
Defined Contribution Plan/401(k) Plan
We maintain a defined contribution plan intended to be a qualified plan under Sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), that we refer to as our "Retirement Savings Plan" or "RSP." The RSP is intended to help ensure the long-term financial stability of our employees. Participation in the RSP is available on the same terms to all of our employees, including our NEOs. Each participant can elect to contribute from 1% to 50% of his or her base salary to the RSP, subject to the limits imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. The Company may make a discretionary matching contribution of 100% of each participant's RSP contributions for the first 1% of base salary, plus 50% of each participant's RSP contribution between 2% and 6% of base salary, subject to limits imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. In 2010, all of our employees hired before January 1, 2010, including our NEOs, made an election to either (i) continue participating in the Retirement Plan and RSP or (ii) cease participating in the Retirement Plan as of June 30, 2010, in favor of participating in an expanded benefit under the RSP beginning on July 1, 2010, under which the Company annually contributes to the RSP an amount equal to 5% of their annual base salary until the termination of their employment with the Company. If an employee elected to participate in the expanded RSP benefit, they would continue to be eligible to receive upon retirement their accrued benefit under the Retirement Plan as of June 30, 2010. See "Deferred Compensation Plans—Defined Contribution Plan/401(k) Plan" for more information regarding the RSP.
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan/Supplemental 401(k) Plan
We maintain a non-qualified, unfunded deferred compensation plan for eligible key employees, which we refer to as our "Shadow Plan." Non-qualified plans provide highly compensated employees with the same retirement savings opportunities, on a relative basis, as other employees. Participants in non-qualified plans become unsecured creditors and incur the credit risk associated with that status. Employees eligible to participate in the Shadow Plan include those who are precluded by regulatory limitations from contributing a full 6% of salary to the RSP or who may choose to defer a portion of their salary beyond the amount matched by the RSP. Each employee who is eligible to participate in the Shadow Plan is credited annually with his or her allocable share of Company matching contributions on the same basis that contributions are matched under the RSP, provided that no more than 6% of any employee's base salary is subject to being matched in the aggregate under the RSP and the Shadow Plan. See below "Deferred Compensation Plans—Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan/Supplemental 401(k) Plan" for more information regarding the Shadow Plan.


Executive Perquisites and Other Compensation
We provide our executive officers certain minimal perquisites not tied to individual or Company performance. We believe these benefits are below the typical practices of companies of comparable size, are highly valued by recipients, have limited cost and are part of a competitive reward program that helps us attract and retain the best executives. Certain of the NEOs are also entitled under the terms of their hiring arrangements to the reimbursement of certain travel expenses, and for the gross-up of related taxes, they incur in connection with relocating to Columbus, Ohio.
Looking Forward-2017 Executive Compensation
The Compensation Committee engaged Pay Governance LLC to serve as its independent outside compensation consultant for 2017. In the course of the engagement, Pay Governance LLC reviewed our executive compensation program as a whole and each principal element of the program. In addition, Pay Governance LLC advised the Compensation Committee regarding the restructuring of the OTIP and the adoption of the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan (as discussed in Proposal Two).
After reviewing our executive compensation program, consulting with Pay Governance LLC and receiving input from our Chief Executive Officer and other members of management, in the first quarter of 2017, the Compensation Committee established our 2017 executive compensation program. For 2017, the Compensation Committee awarded long-term equity compensation to the NEOs in the form of performance units under the 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan (subject to shareholder approval at the Annual Meeting) instead of in the form of stock options and restricted common shares under the 2009 Equity Plan. In addition, the Compensation Committee restructured the OTIP performance bonus award and the PAU award granted to the NEOs (the latter subject to shareholder approval at the Annual Meeting). Set forth below is a summary of the principal elements of our 2017 executive compensation program.
2017 Base Salaries of NEOs
The Compensation Committee set the 2017 base salaries of the NEOs in March 2017 as follows. The adjustments were based on: (i) an evaluation of each individual’s performance; (ii) increases in the median base salaries for individuals in similar roles at peer companies and other insurers comparable in size to the State Auto Group; and (iii) the Company’s overall merit increase budget and policies.
  2016 Base Salary ($) 2017 Base Salary ($) Increase (%)
Michael E. LaRocco 875,000 925,000 5.7
Steven E. English 478,950 492,121 2.8
Jessica E. Clark 455,092 467,607 2.8
Kim B. Garland 455,073 467,588 2.8
Paul M. Stachura 382,076 397,359 4.0
2017 OTIP Performance Bonus Awards
For 2017, each NEO is eligible to receive a cash performance bonus payable based upon the achievement of specified objective performance goals during 2017. The Compensation Committee selected combined ratio and net written premium growth as the performance measures for the OTIP performance bonus awards for each of the NEOs in 2017. The actual performance bonus payable to each NEO may be increased by up to 300% (from the target bonus) if we achieve the maximum performance levels for both of the performance measures and be decreased to zero if we fail to meet the minimum performance levels for the net written premium growth and/or combined ratio.


The following table shows the target and maximum amounts of the 2017 OTIP performance bonus awards, both as a percentage of the NEO’s annual base salary and as a dollar amount, for each of the NEOs based on the potential achievement of the applicable performance goals.
   Target Maximum
   
% of
Salary
 
Dollar
Amount
 
% of
Salary
 
Dollar
Amount
Michael E. LaRocco  100.0% $925,000
 300 $2,775,000
Steven E. English  75.0% $369,091
 225 $1,107,273
Jessica E. Clark  75.0% $350,705
 225 $1,052,115
Kim B. Garland  75.0% $350,691
 225 $1,052,073
Paul M. Stachura  65.0% $258,283
 225 $774,849
The Compensation Committee restructured the OTIP performance bonus awards based on its belief that the revised structure more effectively incentivizes our NEOs by offering significant upside potential to our NEOs if they deliver exceptional results. In addition, the modified OTIP awards are also more consistent with the structure of our 2017 long-term cash incentive awards and long-term equity awards which the Compensation Committee believes will solidify our One Team structure.
2017 Long-Term Equity Compensation
In March 2017, the Compensation Committee conditionally granted to each NEO a performance unit award under our 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan subject to shareholder approval at the Annual Meeting. Under these performance unit awards, each NEO was granted the following target number of performance units:
2017 Performance Unit Awards
(Target # of Performance Units)
Michael E. LaRocco28,056
Steven E. English7,237
Jessica E. Clark6,446
Kim B. Garland6,446
Paul M. Stachura4,747
The performance units will vest and be earned, if at all, after the completion of the performance period, which is the three-year period from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019, based on our net written premium growth and combined ratio during the performance period. The actual number of performance units that will vest and be earned by each NEO may be increased by up to 500% (from the target number) if we achieve the maximum performance levels for the performance measures and be decreased to zero if we fail to meet the minimum performance levels for the net written premium growth and/or combined ratio performance measures. The same minimum, target and maximum performance levels apply to each NEO. Additionally, the NEO must remain employed by us through the end of the performance period for the performance units to vest and be earned, except in the case of termination due to death, disability, retirement or through a reduction in force. The vested performance units will be settled in whole common shares. The performance units have no dividend or voting rights. Any portion of the performance units that does not vest due to inadequate performance or termination of employment will be forfeited.
In the event of the NEO’s termination due to death or disability before the end of the performance period, the target number of performance units will vest and be earned. If the NEO retires before the end of the performance period, the performance units will vest and be earned as if the NEO had remained employed with the Company. In the event of the NEO’s termination through a reduction in force before the end of the performance period, a prorated portion of the performance units that would have vested (based on our actual performance as of the end of the performance period) will vest and be earned. The prorated amount will be based on the number of days that the NEO remained employed during the performance period.
The Compensation Committee elected to replace the stock option and restricted common shares awards that it has historically granted to our NEOs as long-term equity compensation with performance unit awards for several reasons. First, the Compensation Committee believes that the structure of the performance unit awards more effectively incentivizes our NEOs by offering significant upside potential if they deliver exceptional results. Second, the performance unit awards better focus our NEOs on achieving profitable growth and stock appreciation, which the Compensation Committee believes to represent the outcomes that are most critical for delivering improved long-term financial performance and shareholder value. Third, the structure of the performance unit awards establishes consistency with the structure of our 2017 short-term and long-term cash incentive awards which the


Compensation Committee believes will solidify our One Team structure. Finally, performance unit awards further our focus on pay-for-performance.
2017 Long-Term Cash Incentive Compensation
In March 2017, the Compensation Committee conditionally granted to each NEO a PAU award under our 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan subject to shareholder approval at the Annual Meeting. Under these PAU awards, each NEO was granted the following target number of PAUs:
2017 PAU Awards
(Target # of PAUs)
Michael E. LaRocco763,125
Steven E. English196,849
Jessica E. Clark175,353
Kim B. Garland175,346
Paul M. Stachura129,142
The PAUs will vest and be earned, if at all, after the completion of the performance period, which is the three-year period from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019, based on our net written premium growth and combined ratio during the performance period. The actual number of PAUs that will vest and be earned by each NEO may be increased by up to 500% (from the target number) if we achieve the maximum performance levels for the performance measures and be decreased to zero if we fail to meet the minimum performance levels for the net written premium growth and/or combined ratio performance measures. The same minimum, target and maximum performance levels apply to each NEO. Additionally, the NEO must remain employed by us through the end of the performance period for the PAUs to vest and be earned, except in the case of termination due to death, disability, retirement or through a reduction in force. Each vested and earned PAU will be settled in cash for $1.00. Any portion of the PAUs that does not vest due to inadequate Company performance or termination of employment will be forfeited.
In the event of the NEO's termination due to death or disability before the end of the performance period, the target number of PAUs will vest and be earned. If the NEO retires before the end of the performance period, a prorated portion of the PAUs that would have vested (based on our actual performance as of the end of the performance period) will vest and be earned. The prorated amount will be based on the number of days that the NEO remained employed during the performance period. In the event of the NEO’s termination through a reduction in force before the end of the performance period, a prorated portion of the PAUs that would have vested (based on our actual performance as of the end of the performance period) will vest and be earned. The prorated amount will be based on the number of days that the NEO remained employed during the performance period.
The Compensation Committee restructured the PAU awards for several reasons. First, the Compensation Committee believes that the revised structure of the PAU awards more effectively incentivizes our NEOs by offering significant upside potential to our NEOs if they deliver exceptional results. Second, the restructured PAU awards better focus our NEOs on achieving profitable growth, which the Compensation Committee believes to represent the results that are most critical for delivering long-term success and shareholder value. Third, the modified PAU awards are more consistent with the structure of our 2017 short-term cash incentive awards and long-term equity awards which the Compensation Committee believes will solidify our One Team structure.
Contractual Arrangements with Named Executive Officers
Employment Agreements
The Company enters into employment agreements to provide appropriate protection to the employee and the Company and clarity to the employee and the Company about the Company's expectations. The Company's only current employment agreement is with Mr. LaRocco, its Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. The Company believes that having an employment agreement in place with Mr. LaRocco ensures leadership stability and focus and assists in long-term retention. The Company also believes that continuity has a cumulative effect on the achievement of our long-term strategic and operational objectives and, therefore, also furthers the objectives of our executive compensation program.
The terms of Mr. LaRocco's employment agreement were the result of arm's length negotiations between the Compensation Committee and Mr. LaRocco. As is the case with most executive employment agreements, our employment agreement with Mr. LaRocco addresses separation and severance benefits in connection with the termination of his employment with us, either prior to or at the end of the employment term. These provisions benefit both the Company and the executive in that they provide a clear understanding of the rights and obligations of the parties upon events resulting in the termination of the employment relationship. The terms of the employment agreement with Mr. LaRocco, including the severance and separation benefits provided


to Mr. LaRocco upon the occurrence of certain termination events, are described in detail below under "Agreements with Named Executive Officers—LaRocco Employment Agreement."
Change of Control Agreements
Change of control agreements are part of our corporate strategy to retain our well-qualified senior executive officers, notwithstanding a potential or actual change of control of our Company. Change of control agreements also serve our shareholders' interests by ensuring that senior executives will view any potential transaction objectively since an adverse change in their employment situation will not have adverse personal financial consequences. The terms of the change of control agreements with our NEOs are described in detail below under "Agreements with Named Executive Officers." The severance and separation benefits provided to the NEOs under their respective executive agreements are described below under "Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control."
Tax Deductibility of Executive Compensation
Section 162(m) of the Code imposes a limit on the amount of compensation that we may deduct in any one year for our NEOs unless certain specific criteria are satisfied. "Qualified performance-based compensation," as defined in Section 162(m) of the Code, is fully deductible if the programs are approved by shareholders and meet other requirements. Our shareholders have approved the material terms of the OTIP, the 2009 Equity Plan and the Existing LTIP as required by Section 162(m) of the Code. Accordingly, compensation paid for the attainment of the performance bonus awards under the OTIP, stock options awarded under the 2009 Equity Plan and compensation paid for the attainment of the PAUs under the Existing LTIP are intended to be deductible for federal income tax purposes under Section 162(m) of the Code. While we generally attempt to tax qualify our compensation programs, we also seek to maintain flexibility in compensating our executives. As a result, our Compensation Committee has not adopted a policy requiring all compensation to be deductible. For example, discretionary bonus awards under the OTIP and restricted common shares awarded under the 2009 Equity Plan are not intended to constitute "qualified performance-based compensation" for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code.
Stock Ownership Guidelines
We have adopted stock ownership guidelines ("Ownership Guidelines") for our Section 16 officers, including our NEOs. These Ownership Guidelines reinforce one of the objectives of our executive compensation program and primary reasons for awarding equity compensation—to build appropriate levels of common share ownership among our executive team. Each person subject to the Ownership Guidelines is advised to acquire and maintain ownership of a designated number of common shares based on the person's position with us (the "Ownership Target Amounts"). Our Stock Ownership Guidelines also encourage our Section 16 officers to hold the net amount of common shares they obtain through the exercise of stock options or the vesting of restricted common shares or other applicable equity-based awards until the date on which the officer satisfies the Ownership Target Amounts.
Equity grants vary based on an individual's level in the Company, our competitive market data, the scope of the NEO's responsibility and the number of common shares available for issuance under our equity compensation plans. As a result, it makes sense to also vary the level of ownership we require of these individuals based on their level in the Company and the number of option grants they receive. The following Ownership Target Amount categories will remain in place until changed by the Compensation Committee:
PositionOwnership Target Amount
Chairman/CEO100,000 common shares
Senior Vice President15,000 common shares
Vice President7,000 common shares


Executives are in compliance with the Ownership Guidelines if they meet the Ownership Target Amounts within five years of assuming the designated category of management or if they invest a minimum of 6% of their annual base salary in Company stock through a payroll deduction plan. All common shares directly owned by officers count toward meeting their respective Ownership Target Amounts, including unvested restricted common shares. In addition, for purposes of the Ownership Target Amounts we count as owned by officers one-third of their vested "in-the-money" stock options. The following table shows the Ownership Target Amounts for the NEOs and the number of common shares currently owned by the NEOs as of March 10, 2017.
  
Ownership Target
Amount for
Common Shares
 
Eligible Options
Owned by NEO(1)
 
Unvested
Restricted Stock
Owned by NEO(2)
 
Common Shares
Owned Directly
by NEO
 
Total Common
Share Ownership
Toward Target
Michael E. LaRocco 100,000 7,466 15,732 12,431 35,629
Steven E. English 15,000 42,277 4,929 16,873 64,079
Jessica E. Clark 15,000 21,856 4,382 5,675 31,913
Kim B. Garland 15,000 2,076 6,595 41,161 49,832
Paul M. Stachura 15,000 3,040 6,522 1,180 10,742
           
(1) One-third of vested "in the money" stock options count toward the ownership level requirement. Vested options with an exercise price that is higher than the fair market value of the Company's common shares (i.e., underwater stock options) do not count towards the Ownership Guidelines. The stock options included in this table are one-third of those exercisable within 60 days of February 2, 2017, and "in the money" based on a price of $25.71, which represents the average closing price for the Company’s common shares during the 30-day period ending on February 28, 2017.
(2) Includes dividend equivalents reinvested in our common shares of: Mr. LaRocco—369; Mr. English—124; Mrs. Clark—111; Mr. Garland—110; Mr. Stachura—108.
Clawback Policy
Our clawback policy provides that if the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement or amend previously filed financial statements to correct errors to those financial statements, the Company will seek to recover from any current and future Section 16 officer of the Company the portion of pre-tax incentive compensation granted and paid to the officer on or after March 1, 2016, in excess of what should have been paid to the officer if the payment was determined based on the restated or amended financial statements.
Anti-Hedging Policy
Our anti-hedging policy prohibits all Company employees, including our NEOs, and members of the Board from engaging in certain hedging transactions relating to Company securities held by them, including short sales and other transactions that shift the economic consequences of ownership of Company securities to a third party (e.g., the purchase or sale of puts, calls or listed options and hedging transactions such as prepaid variable forwards, equity swaps, caps, collars and exchange funds). Our executive officers and members of the Board are also subject to a policy that prohibits them from holding Company securities in a margin account or otherwise pledging Company securities as collateral for a loan.


Summary Compensation Table for 2016
Name and Principal
Position
 Year Salary 
Bonus
(4)
 
Stock
Awards(6)
 
Option
Awards
(7)
 
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
(8)
 
Change in
Pension
Value and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings
(9)
 
All Other
(10)
 Total
Michael E. LaRocco(1)
 2016 $869,230
 $262,500
 $160,710
 $247,279
 $—
 $—
 $153,600
 $1,693,319
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 2015 $572,115
 $—
 $178,506
 $283,062
 $319,576
 $—
 $109,992
 $1,463,251
Steven E. English 2016 $475,731
 $107,764
 $50,274
 $77,348
 $—
 $154,595
 $23,099
 $888,811
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 2015 $461,539
 $—
 $55,820
 $87,967
 $262,455
 $76,537
 $20,791
 $965,109
2014 $447,231
 $—
 $54,604
 $86,477
 $603,309
 $269,185
 $20,983
 $1,481,789
Jessica E. Clark 2016 $451,609
 $102,396
 $44,782
 $68,901
 $—
 $—
 $125,938
 $793,626
Senior Vice President, Director of Commercial and Specialty Lines 2015 $425,000
 $—
 $49,517
 $78,037
 $406,829
 $—
 $378,739
 $1,338,122
2014 $372,692
 $—
 $39,424
 $62,457
 $601,643
 $—
 $159,007
 $1,235,223
Kim B. Garland(2)
 2016 $451,595
 $102,392
 $44,782
 $68,901
 $—
 $—
 $97,486
 $765,156
Senior Vice President, Director of Standard Lines 2015 $152,308
 $ 50,000(5)
 $99,532
 $75,445
 $330,000
 $—
 $38,457
 $745,742
Paul M. Stachura(3)
 2016 $380,443
 $69,759
 $32,590
 $50,135
 $—
 $—
 $71,090
 $604,017
Senior Vice President, Chief CARE Officer                  
(1)Mr. LaRocco was hired by the Company and State Auto Mutual effective on April 27, 2015, and began serving as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and State Auto Mutual on May 8, 2015, and, therefore, was not an NEO in 2014.
(2)Mr. Garland was hired by the Company effective on August 24, 2015, and, therefore, was not an NEO in 2014.
(3)Mr. Stachura was hired by the Company effective on September 15, 2015, and, therefore, was not an NEO in 2015 or 2014.
(4)The dollar amounts shown in this column for 2016 represent the discretionary cash bonus awarded by the Compensation Committee to the NEOs under the OTIP in an amount equal to 30% of the target amount of the NEO's 2016 OTIP performance bonus award. For Mr. Stachura, this amount also includes a $6,716 signing bonus paid to Mr. Stachura in connection with his hiring.
(5)This dollar amount represents a signing bonus paid to Mr. Garland in connection with his hiring.
(6)This dollar amount represents the grant date fair value of the restricted common shares awarded under our 2009 Equity Plan in the fiscal year indicated. The grant date fair value of the restricted common shares was determined by multiplying the closing price of our common shares on the date of grant by the number of restricted common shares granted.
(7)The dollar amounts shown in this column represent the aggregate grant date fair value of the stock options awarded in the fiscal year indicated. The grant date fair value of each stock option granted was calculated in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Options (“ASC Topic 718”). For a discussion of the assumptions used in the calculations, see Note 13 to our Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for our fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.
(8)The amounts earned in 2016 by the NEOs with respect to the PAUs awarded in 2014 under our Existing LTIP for the 2014-2016 performance period are not included in this column as the results for the 2014-2016 performance period applicable to such PAUs were not available as of the date of this Proxy Statement. We expect to determine the amounts payable to the NEOs with respect to such PAUs in May 2017.



For 2015 non-equity incentive plan compensation, the dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the aggregate total of the following awards earned in 2015 by each NEO under the Company performance component of the LBP, the individual performance component of the LBP and the PAUs relating to the 2013-2015 performance period: 
  
LBP Company
Performance Award ($)
 
LBP Individual
Performance Award ($)
 
PAU Award
($)
 
Total Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
Awards
($)
Michael E. LaRocco(a) 117,276 202,300 — 319,576
Steven E. English 61,310 140,372 60,777 262,459
Jessica E. Clark 58,014 173,250 175,565 406,829
Kim B. Garland(b) 247,500 82,500 — 330,000
(a)Mr. LaRocco’s LBP bonus was prorated to reflect the portion of the year during which he was employed by the Company.
(b)Mr. Garland’s LBP bonus was paid at target in accordance with the terms of his hiring arrangement.
For 2014 non-equity incentive plan compensation, the dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the aggregate total of the following awards earned in 2014 by each NEO under the Company performance component of the LBP, the individual performance component of the LBP and the PAUs relating to the 2012-2014 performance period: 
  
LBP Company Performance Award
($)
 
LBP Individual
Performance Award
($)
 
PAU Award
($)
 
Total Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation Awards
($)
Steven E. English 320,896 200,813 81,600 603,309
Jessica E. Clark 228,504 111,375 261,764 601,643
(9)The dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the change in the pension values for each of our NEOs, including amounts accruing under our Retirement Plan and SERPs in which certain of our NEOs participate. None of our NEOs who participate in our non-qualified deferred compensation plan receive preferential or above-market earnings.
(10)The table below shows the components of the "All Other Compensation" column for 2014 through 2016.
  Year 
Company
Matches
($)(a)
 
Spousal
Travel
Expenses
($)(b)
 
Restricted
Stock
Dividends
($)
��
Relocation Payments
($)(c)
 
Other
($)(d)
 
Total
($)
Michael E. LaRocco 2016 97,596 11,107 3,864 41,033 — 153,600
  2015 27,433 9,746 1,580 71,233 — 109,992
Steven E. English 2016 9,275 11,107 2,717 — — 23,099
  2015 9,275 9,746 1,770 — — 20,791
  2014 9,100 11,111 772 — — 20,983
Jessica E. Clark 2016 31,855 7,683 2,243 83,907 250 125,938
  2015 22,525 9,746 1,400 345,068 — 378,739
  2014 22,100 6,876 557 66,942 62,532 159,007
Kim B. Garland 2016 51,802 11,107 624 2,088 31,865 97,486
  2015 4,062 — 441 21,215 12,739 38,457
Paul M. Stachura 2016 35,864 11,107 454 23,665 — 71,090
(a)The dollar amounts in this column reflect Company-paid matches and contributions under our 401(k) and/or non-qualified deferred compensation plans. None of the amounts paid as matches or contributions received preferential earnings or interest.
(b)The dollar amounts in this column reflect spousal/guest travel hosting on agent incentive trips and gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by the NEOs in connection with their receipt of such payments.


(c)The dollar amounts in this column for 2016 reflects: (i) $41,033 in payments made to Mr. LaRocco to reimburse him for expenses he incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $14,318 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Mr. LaRocco in connection with his receipt of such payments); (ii) $83,907 in payments made to Ms. Clark to reimburse her for expenses she incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $41,489 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Ms. Clark in connection with her receipt of such payments); (iii) $2,088 in payments made to Mr. Garland to reimburse him for expenses he incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $696 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Mr. Garland in connection with his receipt of such payments); and (iv) $23,665 in payments made to Mr. Stachura to reimburse him for expenses he incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $8,779 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Mr. Stachura in connection with his receipt of such payments). The dollar amounts in this column for 2015 reflects: (i) $71,233 in payments made to Mr. LaRocco to reimburse him for expenses he incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $23,816 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Mr. LaRocco in connection with his receipt of such payments); (ii) $345,068 in payments made to Ms. Clark to reimburse her for expenses she incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $115,477 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Ms. Clark in connection with her receipt of such payments); and (iii) $21,215 in payments made to Mr. Garland to reimburse him for expenses he incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $3,055 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Mr. Garland in connection with his receipt of such payments). The dollar amount in this column for 2014 reflects $66,942 in payments made to Ms. Clark to reimburse her for expenses she incurred in connection with relocation to Columbus, Ohio (including $16,796 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Ms. Clark in connection with her receipt of such relocation payments).
(d)The dollar amount in this column for 2016 reflects: (i) a $250 payment to made to Ms.Clark in connection with the tenth anniversary of her hiring; and (ii) $31,865 in payments made to Mr. Garland to reimburse him for travel expenses (including $10,627 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Mr. Garland in connection with his receipt of such payments). The dollar amount in this column for 2015 reflects $12,739 in payments made to Mr. Garland to reimburse him for travel expenses (including $4,248 in gross-up payments for the taxes incurred by Mr. Garland in connection with his receipt of such payments). The dollar amount in this column for 2014 reflects $62,532 paid to Ms. Clark as a result of a third party service provider failing to withhold taxes on a payment it issued to Ms. Clark on behalf of the Company.


Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2016
Name 
Grant
Date
 
Non-Equity
Incentive
Plan
Number of
Units
(#)
 
 
Estimated Future Payouts
Under Non-Equity Incentive
Plan Awards
($)
 
All Other
Stock  Awards:
Number of
Shares of
Stock
or Units
(#)
 
All Other
Option Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options
(#)
 
Exercise or
Base Price
of Option
Awards
($/Sh)
 
Grant Date
Fair Value
of Stock
and
Option
Awards
($)
Threshold
($)
 
Target
($)
 
Maximum
($)
 
Michael E. LaRocco                  
Restricted stock award(1) 3/3/2016         7,461
     $160,710
Stock option award(2) 3/3/2016           32,494
 $21.54
 $247,279
OTIP award(3) 3/3/2016   $87,500
 $875,000 $1,750,000
        
PAU award(4) 3/3/2016 796,250 $318,500
 $796,250 $1,592,500
        
Steven E. English                  
Restricted stock award(1) 3/3/2016         2,334
     $50,274
Stock option award(2) 3/3/2016           10,164
 $21.54
 $77,348
OTIP award(3) 3/3/2016   $35,921
 $359,213 $718,426
        
PAU award(4) 3/3/2016 249,054 $99,622
 $249,054 $498,108
        
Jessica E. Clark                  
Restricted stock award(1) 3/3/2016         2,079
     $44,782
Stock option award(2) 3/3/2016           9,054
 $21.54
 $68,901
OTIP award(3) 3/3/2016   $34,132
 $341,319 $682,638
        
PAU award(4) 3/3/2016 221,857 $88,743
 $221,857 $443,714
        
Kim B. Garland                  
Restricted stock award(1) 3/3/2016         2,079
     $44,782
Stock option award(2) 3/3/2016           9,054
 $21.54
 $68,901
OTIP award(3) 3/3/2016   $34,131
 $341,305 $682,610
        
PAU award(4) 3/3/2016 221,848 $88,739
 $221,848 $443,696
        
Paul M. Stachura                  
Restricted stock award(1) 3/3/2016         1,513
     $32,590
Stock option award(2) 3/3/2016           6,588
 $21.54
 $50,135
OTIP award(3) 3/3/2016   $21,014
 $210,142 $420,284
        
PAU award(4) 3/3/2016 161,428 $64,571
 $161,428 $322,856
        
(1)
In 2016, all of our NEOs received restricted common shares under our 2009 Equity Plan. The restricted common shares shown in this column were granted on the date indicated pursuant to action of the Compensation Committee on that day. These restricted common shares vest on the third anniversary of the grant date. The grant date fair value of these restricted common shares was determined by multiplying the closing price of common shares on the date of grant by the number of restricted common shares granted. For a further discussion of the 2009 Equity Plan, see above "2016 Executive Compensation Program Elements—Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation."
(2)
In 2016, all of our NEOs received options under our 2009 Equity Plan. The options shown in this column were granted on the date indicated, at the closing price on that date, pursuant to action of the Compensation Committee on that day. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period and are exercisable for a ten-year term. All of these options are non-qualified stock options. The grant date fair value of these options was determined in accordance with ASC Topic 718. These options have not been re-priced or otherwise materially amended. For a further discussion of the 2009 Equity Plan, see above "2016 Executive Compensation Program Elements—Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation."
(3)
In 2016, all of our NEOs participated in the OTIP, our annual cash incentive bonus plan. For our NEOs, performance bonus awards under the OTIP awards are based upon the achievement of one or more performance measures of the Company (and/or one or more business segments or subgroups of the Company) over the performance period. The Compensation Committee selected combined ratio, premium growth and policies in force as the performance measures for the OTIP performance bonus awards for each of the NEOs in 2016. None of the NEOs earned an OTIP performance bonus for 2016 because the Company did not achieve the minimum performance level for the Combined Ratio performance measure. For a further discussion of the 2016 OTIP performance bonus awards, see above "2016 Executive Compensation Program Elements—Short-Term Incentive Compensation—OTIP Performance Bonus Awards."


(4)
In 2016, all of our NEOs were selected to participate in the Existing LTIP, a cash incentive bonus plan, for the performance period beginning January 1, 2016, and ending December 31, 2018. Under the Existing LTIP, the NEOs receive performance award units, or "PAUs," the value of which (for all NEOs excluding Ms. Clark) is determined by our Company's performance in three equally weighted measures—(a) statutory combined ratio for the State Auto Group, (b) the State Auto Group's net written premium growth and (c) the State Auto Group's surplus growth—in comparison to the LTIP Peer Group over the three-year performance period. PAUs awarded to Ms. Clark for the 2016-2018 performance period are value based on the achievement of three equally weighted performance measures: (i) statutory combined ratio of our specialty group; (ii) gross written premium growth for our specialty group; and (iii) surplus growth for the State Auto Group—in comparison to the LTIP Peer Group over the three-year performance period. PAUs are granted with a target value of $1.00, although the final value of each PAU can range from $0.00 to $2.00. For a further discussion of the 2016 PAU awards, see above "2016 Executive Compensation Program Elements—Long-Term Equity and Cash Incentive Compensation—2016 Performance Award Units Awards."
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal 2016 Year-End
  Option Awards Stock Awards
  
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)
Exercisable
 
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Options (#)(1)
Unexercisable
 
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Unexercised
Unearned
Options
(#)
 
Option
Exercise
Price
($)
 
Option
Expiration
Date
 
Number
of
Shares
or
Units
of
Stock
That
Have
Not
Vested
(#)(2)
 
Market
Value
of
Shares
or
Units
of
Stock
That
Have
Not
Vested
($)*
 
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number
of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other
Rights
That
Have Not
Vested
(#)
 
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Market
or Payout
Value of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other
Rights
That
Have Not
Vested
($)
Michael E. LaRocco 11,350 22,030 — 23.01 5/6/2025 15,732 421,775    
  — 32,494 — 21.54 3/3/2026        
Steven E. English 5,910 — — 29.53 5/2/2017        
  10,834 — — 25.81 3/5/2018 7,637 204,748    
  12,025 — — 14.49 3/4/2019        
  18,601 — — 18.78 3/3/2020        
  21,796 — — 17.03 3/2/2021        
  16,473 — — 13.53 2/28/2022        
  36,582 — — 16.80 2/27/2023        
  7,307 3,598 — 21.23 3/5/2024        
  3,548 6,887 — 22.72 3/4/2025        
  — 10,164 — 21.54 3/3/2026        
Jessica E. Clark 12,850 — — 17.03 3/2/2021 6,337 169,895    
  9,141 — — 13.53 2/28/2022        
  26,420 — — 16.80 2/27/2023        
  5,277 2,599 — 21.23 3/5/2024        
  3,148 6,109 — 22.72 3/4/2025        
  — 9,054 — 21.54 3/3/2026        
Kim B. Garland 3,148 6,109 — 22.60 8/24/2025 6,595 176,812    
  — 9,054 — 21.54 3/3/2026        
Paul M. Stachura 6,879 13,351 — 24.27 9/15/2025 6,522 174,855    
  — 6,588 — 21.54 3/3/2026        
 
* The closing price of our common shares on December 30, 2016 (the last trading day of 2016) was $26.81.





(1)All options listed in this table are exercisable for a ten-year period from their respective date of grant. The following schedule describes the vesting dates for the options listed as unexercisable by date of grant:
Options expiring February 27, 2023, were granted on February 28, 2013. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options fully vested as of February 28, 2016.
Options expiring March 5, 2024, were granted on March 6, 2014. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options fully vested as of March 6, 2017.
Options expiring March 4, 2025, were granted on March 5, 2015. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options will fully vest as of March 5, 2018.
Options expiring May 6, 2025, were granted on May 7, 2015. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options will fully vest as of May 7, 2018.
Options expiring August 24, 2025, were granted on August 25, 2015. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options will fully vest as of August 25, 2018.
Options expiring September 15, 2025, were granted on September 16, 2015. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options will fully vest as of September 16, 2018.
Options expiring March 3, 2026, were granted on March 4, 2016. These options vest in equal annual installments over a three-year period. All of these options will fully vest as of March 4, 2019.
(2)All restricted common shares listed in this table vest on the third anniversary of the date of grant.
Option Exercises and Stock Vested in Fiscal 2016
Option AwardsStock Awards
Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise
(#)
Value Realized on Exercise
($)(1)
Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting
(#)
Value Realized on Exercise
($)(2)
Michael E. LaRocco————
Steven E. English————
Jessica E. Clark————
Kim B. Garland————
Paul M. Stachura————
(1)This dollar amount represents the aggregate difference between the exercise price of the options and the closing market price of our common shares on the exercise date.
(2)This dollar amount represents the number of common shares underlying the unvested restricted common shares on the vesting date multiplied by the closing market price of our common shares on the vesting date.
Retirement Plans
Retirement Plan
We maintain a defined benefit pension plan, referred to as our "Retirement Plan." The Retirement Plan is intended to be a qualified plan under Section 401(a) of the Code and is subject to the minimum funding standards of Section 412 of the Code. Employees hired before January 1, 2010, (which does not include any NEOs currently employed by the Company other than Mr. English) are eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan. Benefits payable under the Retirement Plan are funded entirely through Company contributions to a trust fund. Only base salary, not incentive compensation, is taken into consideration in the calculation of benefits under our Retirement Plan.


Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan
Our Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan ("SERP"), which mirrors the Retirement Plan, provides a lump sum or deferred cash payments in actuarially determined amounts upon retirement for certain officers. Steve English is the only current NEO who is eligible to participate in the SERP. Like the Retirement Plan, the SERP considers only base salary, not incentive compensation, in calculating the benefit due each participant. The Compensation Committee previously approved participation in this SERP for all NEOs. Eligible executives are now automatically enrolled in the SERP when his or her annual base salary exceeds the limit that can be considered in calculating benefits under the Retirement Plan.
Pension Benefits in Fiscal 2016
  Plan Name Number of Years of Credited Service Present Value of Accumulated Benefit(1) Payments During Last Fiscal Year
Michael E. LaRocco(2)        
Steven E. English Retirement Plan 16(3) $601,084
 —
  SERP 16(3) $399,091
 —
Jessica E. Clark(2)        
Kim B, Garland(2)        
Paul M. Stachura(2)        
(1)The amounts shown in this column represent the present value of the normal retirement benefit each NEO would receive under the Retirement Plan, SERP and individual supplemental executive retirement plans if the NEO were to retire at his normal retirement age. Normal retirement age under the plans is defined as attaining age 65. The normal retirement benefit is equal to the sum of (i) 1.75% of a participant's "covered compensation" multiplied by the participant's years of service, plus (ii) 0.65% of a participant’s covered compensation multiplied by the participant's years of service. The normal form of benefit is a single life annuity; however, participants may elect a joint and survivor annuity with a survivor benefit of up to 100% of the participant's benefit. A participant who elects a joint and survivor annuity receives a reduced annual benefit, with a joint and 100% survivor annuity providing the smallest annual benefit. Participants who have attained age 55 with 15 years of service may receive an early retirement benefit under the plans. The early retirement benefit for a participant is reduced by 5% for each year prior to age 65 for a participant who terminates between ages 55 and 59, and 4% for each year prior to age 65 for a participant who terminates between ages 60 and 65. If a participant were to retire at age 55, their normal retirement benefit would be reduced by 45%. As of December 31, 2016, Mr. English is the only NEO eligible for early retirement benefits under the plans. Participants may elect to receive up to 50% of their benefits in a lump-sum upon their retirement.

(2)Ms. Clark and Messrs. LaRocco, Garland and Stachura are not eligible to participate in the Retirement Plan or SERP and are not a party to an individual supplemental executive retirement plan.

(3)Includes Mr. English's one year of service with Meridian Insurance Group, Inc. ("MIGI"). Mr. English was previously an executive officer with MIGI, which was acquired by State Auto Mutual in 2001. Following this acquisition, Mr. English became our employee, and for purposes of the Retirement Plan, he was given credit for his one year of eligible service with MIGI (total actuarial value of $32,713 within the Retirement Plan and $20,136 within the SERP).

Deferred Compensation Plans
Defined Contribution Plan/401(k) Plan
Our defined contribution plan, which we refer to as the "Retirement Savings Plan" or "RSP," is intended to be a qualified plan under Sections 401(a) and 401(k) of the Code. Participation in the RSP is available on the same terms to all of our employees, including our NEOs. Each participant may elect to contribute from 1% to 50% of his or her base salary to the RSP, subject to any Internal Revenue Service limitations. The deferred amount is contributed to the RSP trust fund and invested in accordance with the election of the participant from among investment funds established under the trust agreement. Investment options include common shares, but only up to 20% of new contributions and the total account balance may be invested in common shares. Mr. Garland is our only NEO who made this election.


The Company may make a discretionary matching contribution of 100% of each participant's RSP contributions for the first 1% of base salary, plus 50% of each participant's RSP contribution between 2% and 6% of base salary, subject to an annual maximum of $18,000 for 2016. This equates to a Company contribution in the RSP of $0.58 cents for each salary dollar contributed by an employee who contributed a full 6% of salary to RSP. While a participant is always vested in his or her own salary reduction contributions, the right of a participant to amounts credited to his or her account as matching contributions is subject to vesting as provided by the 401(k) Plan.
In 2010, all of our employees hired before January 1, 2010, including our NEOs, made an election to either (i) continue participating in the Retirement Plan and RSP on the terms discussed above or (ii) cease participating in the Retirement Plan as of June 30, 2010 in favor of participating in an expanded benefit under the RSP beginning on July 1, 2010, pursuant to which the Company would annually contribute to the RSP an amount equal to 5% of their annual base salary until the termination of their employment with the Company. If an employee elected to participate in the expanded RSP benefit, they would continue to be eligible to receive upon retirement their accrued benefit under the Retirement Plan as of June 30, 2010.
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan/Supplemental 401(k) Plan
Our Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, which we refer to as our "Shadow Plan," is a non-qualified, unfunded deferred compensation plan for eligible key employees. Eligible employees include those who are precluded by regulatory limitations from contributing a full 6% of salary to the RSP or who choose to defer a portion of their salary beyond the amount matched by the RSP. Under the Shadow Plan, eligible employees who wish to participate enter into a salary reduction agreement to defer payment of an additional portion of the employee's salary. Each employee who is eligible to participate in the Shadow Plan is credited annually with his or her allocable share of Company matching contributions on the same basis that contributions are matched under the RSP, provided that no more than 6% of any employee’s base salary is subject to being matched in the aggregate under the RSP and the Shadow Plan.
The total amount of salary deferred under the RSP and the Shadow Plan cannot exceed in the aggregate 50% of a participant's base salary. The Shadow Plan also allows participants to defer up to 100% of short-term and long-term incentive compensation, although bonuses remain ineligible for a Company match. Amounts deferred under the Shadow Plan, along with the Company match on any portion of salary deferral eligible for the match, are invested by State Auto P&C in a variety of mutual fund-type investment options in accordance with the election of the participants, which the participants may modify on a daily basis. Participants may choose from a variety of mutual fund-type investment options, and elect a five or ten-year payout option or a "date-certain" distribution option for withdrawal of funds from the Plan. Neither the Shadow Plan nor the RSP provides for above market or preferential earnings opportunities for any participant.
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation for Fiscal 2016
  
Executive
Contributions
in Last Fiscal
Year
($)(1)(2)
 
Registrant
Contributions in Last
Fiscal Year
($)(1)(3)
 
Aggregate 
Earnings in Last Fiscal Year
($)(4)
 
Aggregate
Withdrawals/
Distributions
($)
 
Aggregate
Balance at
Last Fiscal
Year-End
($)
Michael E. LaRocco 61, 615 77,635 3,832 — 163,606
Steven E. English — — 29,210 — 625,313
Jessica E. Clark — 9,331 1,701 — 32,291
Kim B. Garland 103,360 47,457 18,604 — 147,898
Paul M. Stachura 6,172 4,971 5 — 5,102
(1)Contributions by the NEO or by us, as the case may be, were made pursuant to the Shadow Plan.
(2)
The dollar amounts shown in this column are included in the "Salary" column in the Summary Compensation Table for 2016.
(3)
The dollar amounts shown in this column are included in the "All Other Compensation" column in the Summary Compensation Table for 2016 and are discussed in the footnotes thereto.
(4)The dollar amounts shown in this column reflect the total earnings on dollars deposited into the NEO's account in 2016 and all prior years for which the NEO deferred compensation on a non-qualified basis. Earnings are not preferential, in any sense. The dollars in these accounts are invested in investment funds that mirror the investment funds offered to participants in our RSP.


Agreements with Named Executive Officers
LaRocco Employment Agreement
The Company, State Auto Mutual and State Auto P&C entered into an employment agreement with Michael E. LaRocco, our President and Chief Executive Officer, on March 27, 2015, effective as of April 27, 2015. The employment agreement ends on December 31, 2018, unless terminated earlier due to Mr. LaRocco's disability, death, voluntary termination of employment, or involuntary termination of employment by the Company for cause or without cause.
Under his employment agreement, Mr. LaRocco receives an annual base salary and is entitled to participate in the OTIP, the Existing LTIP, any Company employee stock purchase plan, the Retirement Savings Plan, and the 2009 Equity Plan, and is eligible to participate in all other incentive compensation plans, stock purchase plans, retirement plans, equity-based compensation plans and fringe benefits generally made available to employees of the Company. The employment agreement further provides that unless Mr. LaRocco otherwise agrees (i) his annual base salary shall not be less than $850,000, (ii) his target bonus under the OTIP shall not be less than 100% of his then current annual base salary and (iii) his target bonus under the Existing LTIP shall not be less than 140% of his then current annual base salary. The compensation paid to Mr. LaRocco in 2016 is set forth above in the "Summary Compensation Table for 2016."
Mr. LaRocco's employment agreement also imposes post-employment covenants that prohibit Mr. LaRocco from disclosing or using our confidential information, engaging in activities which compete with our businesses and soliciting our employees to work for another company. The obligations imposed by the non-competition and non-solicitation covenants will continue for a period of two years following Mr. LaRocco's separation of service with the Company, provided, that the non-competition obligations will only continue for a period of one year if Mr. LaRocco's separation from service with the Company is voluntary.
Mr. LaRocco's employment agreement provides him with the following severance and separation benefits under the following termination events:
Termination for Cause
If Mr. LaRocco is terminated for cause, he would be entitled to receive his base salary through the date of termination. Mr. LaRocco's employment agreement defines cause as:
the willful and continued failure of the executive to perform the executive's duties (other than any such failure resulting from incapacity due to a disability), after a written demand for performance is delivered to the executive which specifically identifies the manner in which the executive has not performed the executive's duties;
the willful engaging by the executive in illegal conduct or gross misconduct which has a material adverse effect on the Company;
the breach of any of the confidentiality, non-competition or non-solicitation covenants imposed by the employment agreement; or
the willful failure by the executive to comply with any code of conduct or code of ethics applicable to the executive.
For purposes of the definition of cause, no act or failure to act, on the part of the executive, will be considered "willful" unless it is done, or omitted to be done, by the executive in bad faith or without reasonable belief that the executive's action or omission was in the best interests of the Company.
Termination Without Cause
If Mr. LaRocco is terminated without cause (other than in the event of his death, disability or retirement), he would be entitled to receive:
his then-current base salary for the lesser of 24 months or until the end of the calendar year in which he attains age 65;
a one-year bonus payment equal to the average of the aggregate bonuses Mr. LaRocco earned under the OTIP and Existing LTIP for each of the two years immediately preceding the year in which the employment agreement is terminated; and
an amount equal to the then current monthly per employee cost of providing State Auto's health insurance benefit multiplied by 24.


In addition, if Mr. LaRocco is terminated without cause, any stock options granted to Mr. LaRocco shall vest on the termination date.
Death
In the event Mr. LaRocco dies while employed by State Auto, his beneficiaries will receive his then-current base salary through the date of his death plus a pro rata share of the compensation he earned under the OTIP and Existing LTIP as of the date of death.
Disability
If Mr. LaRocco becomes unable to substantially perform his duties hereunder because of illness or other incapacity constituting a disability as defined in Section 409A of the Code, the Company may terminate Mr. LaRocco's employment. In the event of such a termination, Mr. LaRocco would be entitled to receive his base salary and payments under our incentive compensation plans to the date of termination. In addition, Mr. LaRocco shall continue to receive such health insurance benefits as he and his spouse receive on the date of the disability and such group life insurance as Mr. LaRocco has in place on his life as of the date of the disability.
Voluntary Termination
If Mr. LaRocco voluntarily terminates his employment, including retirement initiated solely by Mr. LaRocco, he shall cease to receive compensation as of the date of his separation from service, except for any compensation to which he is entitled under the OTIP or Existing LTIP as then in effect, provided, that he is employed by State Auto on the date such compensation is paid under the OTIP or Existing LTIP.
Mr. LaRocco may be required to repay all or any part of such severance and separation benefits if:
Mr. LaRocco violates any of the non-competition, non-solicitation or confidentiality covenants applicable to Mr. LaRocco;
(i) the amount of such benefits are calculated based upon the achievement of certain financial results that are subsequently the subject of a financial statement restatement by the Company; and (ii) the amount of his severance and separation benefits would have been lower than the amount actually awarded to him had the financial results been properly reported; or
Mr. LaRocco engages in (i) any conduct detrimental to the Company during the employment term which has a material adverse effect on the Company or (ii) any fraudulent conduct.
LaRocco Executive Change in Control Agreement
The Company, State Auto Mutual and State Auto P&C entered into an executive change in control agreement, which we refer to as an "executive agreement," with Mr. LaRocco on March 27, 2015, contemporaneously with our entry into his employment agreement. The term of Mr. LaRocco's executive agreement coincides with the term of his employment agreement, subject to an extension for the lesser of 36 months after any month in which a Change of Control occurs, or until Mr. LaRocco attains age 65. Mr. LaRocco's executive agreement will terminate if his employment terminates prior to a Change of Control.
Mr. LaRocco is entitled to receive certain severance benefits under his executive agreement if Mr. LaRocco incurs a separation of service (as defined by Section 409A of the Code) during the term of his executive agreement:
by us at any time within 24 months after a Change of Control;
by Mr. LaRocco for good reason (as defined in the executive agreement) at any time within 24 months after a Change of Control; or
by us at any time after an agreement has been reached with an unaffiliated third party, the performance of which would result in a Change of Control involving that party, if such Change of Control is consummated within 12 months after the date of Mr. LaRocco's termination.
In the event of such a separation of service, Mr. LaRocco will receive the following severance benefits (in addition to accrued compensation, bonuses and vested benefits and stock options) under his executive agreement:
a lump sum cash payment equal to 2.99 times Mr. LaRocco's then-current annual base salary (subject to reduction if Mr. LaRocco is within two years of age 65);


a lump sum cash payment equal to (i) 2.99 times the average of the annual aggregate bonuses Mr. LaRocco earned under the OTIP for the three years immediately preceding the year in which the Change of Control occurs (subject to reduction if Mr. LaRocco is within two years of age 65) plus (ii) a prorated annual incentive payment for the year in which the Change of Control occurs based on the target award level established for such year;
a lump-sum cash payment equal to the then current monthly per employee cost of providing the Company's health insurance benefit multiplied by the lesser of 36 or the number of months until Mr. LaRocco attains age 65;
outplacement benefits up to $35,000; and
stock options or other equity-based awards held by Mr. LaRocco become exercisable in accordance with the applicable terms of the equity compensation plans and award agreements.
Mr. LaRocco's executive agreement also provides that he is entitled to receive such amounts as would be necessary to compensate him for any excise tax paid or incurred due to any severance payment or other benefit provided under his executive agreement. However, if Mr. LaRocco's severance payments and benefits would not be subject to excise tax if the total of such payments and benefits were reduced by 10% or less, then such payments and benefits would be reduced by the minimum amount necessary (not to exceed 10% of such payments and benefits) so that Mr. LaRocco would not receive an excess severance payment and he would not be subject to an excise tax.
Mr. LaRocco's executive agreement also provides that, for a period of five years after a Change of Control, he would receive at no charge coverage under a standard directors' and officers' liability insurance policy. Furthermore, the Company, State Auto Mutual and State Auto P&C will indemnify and hold harmless Mr. LaRocco to the fullest extent permitted under Ohio law against all expenses and liabilities reasonably incurred by Mr. LaRocco in connection with or arising out of any action, suit, or proceeding in which he may be involved by reason of having served as our director or officer.
English, Clark, Garland and Stachura Executive Change in Control Agreements
The Company, State Auto Mutual and State Auto P&C entered into a change of control agreement, which we refer to as "executive agreements," with Mr. English and Ms. Clark effective as of October 27, 2014. Messrs. Garland and Stachura each entered into an executive agreement effective as of December 1, 2015.
The term of the executive agreements ends on the earlier to occur of the third anniversary of the agreement and the end of the month in which the executive attains age 65 (but, in any event, no later than October 27, 2017); provided, that if a Change of Control occurs during the three-year period, the term of the executive agreement will automatically extend until the earlier to occur of the 36-month anniversary of the date of the Change of Control or the date on which the executive reaches age 65. The executive agreement will terminate if the executive’s employment terminates prior to a Change of Control.
Each of the executive agreements defines a "Change of Control" to include the following:
the acquisition by any person of beneficial ownership of 30% or more of the Company's outstanding voting securities (which percentage will increase or decrease, as the case may be, such that the percentage of securities ownership is consistent with any future changes to the percentage of securities ownership represented in the Change of Control definition in the 2009 Equity Plan);
a majority of the Board is comprised of other than continuing directors;
a merger involving the Company where the Company's shareholders immediately prior to the merger own 50% or less of the combined voting power of the surviving entity immediately after the merger;
a sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company, including a sale of assets or earning power aggregating more than 50% of the assets or earning power of the Company on a consolidated basis;
a reorganization or other corporate event involving the Company which would have the same effect as any of the above-described events; and
State Auto Mutual affiliates with or is merged into or consolidated with a third party or completes a conversion to a stock insurance company and, as a result, a majority of the Board of Directors of State Auto Mutual or its successor is comprised of other than continuing directors.


The executive is entitled to receive certain severance benefits under the executive agreement if during the term of his or her executive agreement the executive's employment is terminated:
by us at any time within 24 months after a Change of Control (for any reason other than for cause, the death or disability of the executive or mandatory retirement at age 65);
by the executive for good reason (as defined in the executive agreement) at any time within 24 months after a Change of Control; or
by us (for any reason other than for cause or the death or disability of the executive) at any time after an agreement has been reached with an unaffiliated third party, the performance of which would result in a Change of Control involving that party, if such Change of Control is actually consummated within 12 months after the date of the executive's termination.
In the event of such termination, the executive is entitled to receive the following severance benefits (in addition to accrued compensation and bonuses) under the executive agreement:
a lump sum cash payment equal to two times the executive's annual base salary (subject to reduction if the executive is within two years of age 65);
a lump sum cash payment equal to two times the average of the annual aggregate bonus earned by the executive under the LBP or OTIP during the three fiscal years immediately preceding the year in which the Change of Control occurs (subject to reduction if the executive is within two years of age 65);
outplacement benefits up to a maximum amount equal to 15% of the executive's annual base salary plus up to $5,000 to reimburse the executive for travel expenses incurred in connection with seeking new employment;
stock options and other equity awards held by the executive become exercisable in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan; and
an amount equal to the then current monthly per employee cost of providing the Company's health insurance benefit multiplied by 24 (subject to reduction if the executive is within two years of age 65).
These executive agreements also provide that in the event that the executive's severance payments and benefits would not be subject to excise tax if the total of such payments and benefits were reduced by 10% or less, then such payments and benefits would be reduced by the minimum amount necessary (not to exceed 10% of such payments and benefits) so that the executive would not be subject to an excise tax.
These executive agreements also prohibit the executive from disclosing or using our confidential information. The Board may require the executive to repay all or any portion of the severance benefits if
the executive violates any of the non-competition, non-solicitation or confidentiality covenants applicable to the executive;
(i) the amount of such benefits are calculated based upon the achievement of certain financial results that are subsequently the subject of a financial statement restatement by the Company; (ii) the executive engages in conduct detrimental to the Company that causes or substantially contributes to the need for the financial statement restatement; and (iii) the amount of his or her severance and separation benefits would have been lower than the amount actually awarded to him had the financial results been properly reported; or
the executive engages in any conduct detrimental to the Company during the employment term which has a material adverse effect on the Company.
These executive agreements also provide that, for a period of five years after a Change of Control, the executive will receive at no charge coverage under a standard directors' and officers' liability insurance policy. Furthermore, the Company, State Auto Mutual and State Auto P&C will indemnify and hold harmless the executive to the fullest extent permitted under Ohio law if he or she is made a party to any proceeding by reason of having served as our director, officer or employee.


Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control
The following table summarizes the potential payments to NEOs upon a termination of employment and/or a change of control of the Company (assuming that the triggering event occurred on December 31, 2016): 
  Benefit(1) 
Termination
Without
Cause(2)
 
Termination
For Cause or
Voluntary
Termination
 Death Disability 
After
Change
of Control
 
Michael E. LaRocco Salary $1,750,000
(3)$—
  $—
  $—
(4)$2,616,250
(5)
  Cash Bonus(6) $159,788
(7)$—
(8)$1,656,084
(8)$1,656,084
(8)$1,352,766
(9)
  Stock Options $254,957
(10)$254,957
(10)$254,957
(10)$254,957
(10)$254,957
(10)
  Restricted Stock $—
  $—
  $411,882
(11)$411,882
(11)$411,882
(11)
  Health Benefits $41,928
(12)$—
  $—
  $33,988
(13)$62,892
(14)
  Outplacement Assistance $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
  $40,000
(15)
  TOTAL: $2,206,673
  $254,957
  $2,322,923
  $2,356,911
  $4,738,747
  
Steven E. English Salary $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
(4)$957,900
(17)
  Cash Bonus(18) $463,593
(8)$463,593
(8)$822,806
(8)$822,806
(8)$669,790
(19)
  Stock Options $—
  $101,809
(10)$101,809
(10)$101,809
(10)$101,809
(10)
  Restricted Stock $—
  $197,777
(11)$197,777
(11)$197,777
(11)$197,777
(11)
  Health Benefits $—
  $—
  $—
  $22,075
(13)$41,928
(12)
  Outplacement Assistance $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
  $76,843
(20)
  Retirement Benefits $1,000,175
(16)$1,000,175
(16)$1,000,175
(16)$1,000,175
(16)$1,000,175
(16)
  TOTAL: $1,463,768
  $1,763,354
  $2,122,567
  $2,144,642
  $3,046,222
  
Jessica E. Clark Salary $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
(4)$910,184
(17)
  Cash Bonus(18) $375,390
(8)$—
  $716,709
(8)$716,709
(8)$562,207
(19)
  Stock Options $—
  $—
  $87,203
(10)$87,203
(10)$87,203
(10)
  Restricted Stock $—
  $—
  $164,292
(11)$164,292
(11)$164,292
(11)
  Health Benefits $—
  $—
  $—
  $38,464
(13)$41,928
(12)
  Outplacement Assistance $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
  $73,264
(20)
  TOTAL: $375,390
  $—
  $968,204
  $1,006,668
  $1,839,078
  
Kim B. Garland Salary $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
(4)$910,146
(17)
  Cash Bonus(18) $216,949
(8)$—
  $558,254
(8)$558,254
(8)$220,000
(19)
  Stock Options $—
 $—
 $73,433
(10)$73,433
(10)$73,433
(10)
  Restricted Stock $—
  $—
  $173,863
(11)$173,863
(11)$173,863
(11)
  Health Benefits $—
  $—
  $—
  $31,394
(13)$41,928
(12)
  Outplacement Assistance $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
  $73,261
(20)
  TOTAL: $216,949
  $—
  $805,550
  $836,944
  $1,492,631
  
Paul M. Stachura Salary $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
(4)$764,152
(17)
  Cash Bonus(18) $231,318
(8)$—
 $441,460
(8)$441,460
(8)$19,713
(19)
  Stock Options $—
 $—
 $68,630
(10)$68,630
(10)$68,630
(10)
  Restricted Stock $—
 $—
 $171,933
(11)$171,933
(11)$171,933
(11)
  Health Benefits $—
  $—
  $—
  $31,394
(13)$41,928
(12)
  Outplacement Assistance $—
  $—
  $—
  $—
  $62,311
(20)
  TOTAL: $231,318
  $—
  $682,023
  $713,417
  $1,128,667
  


(1)
The potential post-employment payments and benefits shown in this table are payable to Messrs. LaRocco, English, Garland and Stachura and Ms. Clark pursuant to their respective employment and/or executive agreements with us and the applicable terms of the OTIP, Existing LTIP, 2009 Equity Plan and associated award agreements. The NEOs have no other agreement or plan which provides them with potential post-employment payments or benefits, except in the case of disability, where we provide long-term disability benefits to all of our employees subject to certain terms and conditions. Unless otherwise indicated, all payments would be made in one lump sum amount. For narrative disclosure of the material terms of our agreements with Messrs. LaRocco, English, Garland and Stachura and Ms. Clark see above "Agreements with Named Executive Officers" and the narrative disclosure that immediately precedes this table.
(2)Under the applicable agreements, there are no provisions permitting the NEOs to terminate their employment for good reason prior to a change of control of our Company or State Auto Mutual.
(3)This dollar amount represents the continuation of the payment of Mr. LaRocco's base salary for 24 months.
(4)If terminated for disability, the NEO would be entitled to receive 60% of his or her base salary as of December 31, 2016, until retirement at age 65 or the disability terminates, payable in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll practices. The Company cannot develop a reasonable estimate of the aggregate amount that would be payable to the NEO for this benefit.
(5)This dollar amount represents 2.99 times Mr. LaRocco's annual base salary on December 31, 2016.
(6)In the event Mr. LaRocco is terminated by reason of his voluntary termination or disability, he would be entitled to a prorated award under the Existing LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination based upon the length of time that the NEO was employed by the Company during the performance period. The Company cannot develop a reasonable estimate of any future payments under the Existing LTIP because it does not have final performance data for any performance period under the Existing LTIP and cannot predict the performance of the members of the LTIP Peer Group. Accordingly, the Company has assumed, solely for the purpose of providing a quantification of the amounts that would be payable to Mr. LaRocco upon a hypothetical termination of his employment without cause or by reason of his voluntary termination, that each of the performance measures applicable to each performance period in effect under the Existing LTIP as of the date of termination would be satisfied at the target level. Mr. LaRocco would not be entitled to any award under the Existing LTIP in the event his employment is terminated for cause. In the event Mr. LaRocco is terminated by reason of his death, he would be entitled to an award under the Existing LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination equal to his target award for each such performance period multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which would be the number of days of employment in the performance period through the date of termination, and the denominator of which would be the number of days in the performance period.
(7)This dollar amount represents the sum of the average of the aggregate bonuses Mr. LaRocco earned under the LBP and Existing LTIP for 2014 and 2015.
(8)This dollar amount represents the amount of compensation to which the NEO is entitled pursuant to the OTIP and Existing LTIP as of December 31, 2016; provided that the NEO would not be entitled to any payment pursuant to the OTIP or Existing LTIP if he or she is terminated for cause.
(9)This dollar amount represents (i) 2.99 times the sum of the average of the annual aggregate bonuses Mr. LaRocco earned under the LBP for the two years immediately preceding the year in which the Change of Control occurs ($477,766) plus (ii) the target OTIP award established for Mr. LaRocco for 2016 ($875,000).
(10)This dollar amount represents the aggregate difference between the closing market price for our common shares on December 31, 2016, ($26.81) and the exercise price of the unvested stock options held by the NEO on December 31, 2016, the vesting of which will accelerate upon the termination event; provided, however, that if the NEO's employment is terminated due to illegal conduct engaged in by the NEO, all options held by the NEO will be forfeited.
(11)This dollar amount represents the number of common shares underlying the unvested restricted common shares held by the NEO on December 31, 2016, the vesting of which will accelerate upon the termination event, multiplied by the closing market price of our common shares on December 31, 2016 ($26.81).
(12)This dollar amount represents the monthly per employee cost of providing State Auto's health insurance benefit as of December 31, 2016, ($1,747) multiplied by 24.
(13)This dollar amount represents our estimate of the present value of the health benefits the NEO would be entitled to if the NEO was terminated on December 31, 2015, by reason of his or her disability.


(14)This dollar amount represents the monthly per employee cost of providing State Auto's health insurance benefit as of December 31, 2016, ($1,747) multiplied by 36.
(15)This dollar amount represents the maximum amount for which the Company will reimburse the NEO for expenses he incurs in connection with seeking new employment (up to $35,000 for outplacement services and up to $5,000 for travel expenses incurred in connection with seeking new employment).
(16)This dollar amount represents the value of the retirement benefits payable to the NEO or his beneficiaries under the retirement plans of the Company in which the NEO participates assuming the termination event was effective on December 31, 2016.
(17)This dollar amount represents two times the NEO's annual base salary as of December 31, 2016 (subject to reduction if the executive is within two years of age 65).
(18)In the event a non-CEO NEO is terminated without cause or by reason of his or her voluntary termination or disability, the NEO would be entitled to a prorated award under the Existing LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination based upon the length of time that the NEO was employed by the Company during the performance period. The Company cannot develop a reasonable estimate of any future payments under the Existing LTIP because it does not have final performance data for any performance period under the LTIP and cannot predict the performance of the members of the LTIP Peer Group. Accordingly, the Company has assumed, solely for the purpose of providing a quantification of the amounts that would be payable to the NEO upon a hypothetical termination of his employment without cause or by reason of his voluntary termination, that each of the performance measures applicable to each performance period in effect under the Existing LTIP as of the date of termination would be satisfied at the target level. The NEO would not be entitled to any award under the Existing LTIP in the event his employment is terminated for cause. In the event of termination of the NEO's employment by reason of his or her death, the NEO would be entitled to an award under the Existing LTIP for each performance period in effect as of the date of termination equal to his target award for each such performance period multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which would be the number of days of employment in the performance period through the date of termination, and the denominator of which would be the number of days in the performance period.
(19)This dollar amount represents two times the average of the annual aggregate bonus earned by the executive under the LBP for 2013, 2014 and 2015.
(20)This dollar amount represents 15% of the value of the NEO’s annual base salary as of December 31, 2016, plus a travel expense account of up to $5,000 to reimburse the NEO for travel expenses he incurs in connection with seeking new employment.







OWNERSHIP OF VOTINGEQUITY SECURITIES

OF THE COMPANY

Beneficial Ownership Information for Directors and Named Executive Officers
The following table sets forth information with respect to common shares beneficially owned by directors, director nominees and our NEOs (those persons listed in the Summary Compensation Table within the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this Proxy Statement) as of March 10, 2017:
  Common Shares Beneficially Owned (1) Stock Options (2) Restricted Share Units (3) Total Beneficial Ownership of Common Shares and RSUs Percent of Class
Robert E. Baker 2,800 — 30,618 33,418 *
David J. D'Antoni 67,275 — 34,296 101,571 *
Michael J. Fiorile — — 6,400 6,400 *
Kym M. Hubbard — — 1,923 1,923 *
Michael E. LaRocco 27,794 (4)(5) 22,398 — 50,192 *
Eileen A. Mallesch 3,800 — 23,818 27,618 *
Thomas E. Markert 506 — 30,618 31,124 *
David R. Meuse 65,000 — 32,448 97,448 *
S. Elaine Roberts 1,000 — 34,296 35,296 *
Steven E. English 21,679 (5)(6) 126,830 — 148,509 *
Jessica E. Clark 9,945 (5)(6) 65,569 — 75,514 *
Kim B. Garland 47,646 (5)(7) 6,227 — 53,873 *
Paul M. Stachura 7,594 (5)(8) 9,119 — 16,713 *
Directors and Officers as a Group (21 people) 296,063 (4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 312,614 
 631,075 (9) 1.54%
           
* Less than one (1%) percent.
(1)Except as indicated in the notes to this table, the persons named in the table and/or their spouses have sole voting and investment power with respect to all common shares shown as beneficially owned by them. For Mr. D'Antoni, includes 1,100 common shares over which he exercises voting rights through a power of attorney on behalf of his mother.

(2)With respect to stock options, this table includes only stock options for common shares which are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of March 10, 2017.

(3)Represents Restricted Share Units ("RSUs") granted under the Outside Directors Restricted Share Unit Plan. Includes dividend equivalents reinvested in our common shares of: Mr. Baker—3,166; Mr. D'Antoni—4,044; Mr. Fiorile—139; Mrs. Hubbard—7; Mrs. Mallesch—1,777; Mr. Markert—3,166; Mr. Meuse—3,596; Ms. Roberts—4,044.

(4)Includes a restricted stock award of 7,902 common shares which are subject to a risk of forfeiture if, prior to May 7, 2018, Mr. LaRocco's employment is terminated or he violates any provision of the restricted stock agreement applicable to these common shares. However, these common shares will not be forfeited, and will automatically vest, if, prior to May 7, 2018, Mr. LaRocco's employment is terminated in connection with a change of control of the Company. These common shares are also subject to restrictions on transfer until May 7, 2018.

(5)Includes restricted stock awards made to the Named Executive Officers and other officers on March 3, 2016. On that date, the Compensation Committee made the following restricted stock awards to the Named Executive Officers: Mr. LaRocco—7,461 common shares; Mr. English—2,334 common shares; Ms. Clark—2,079 common shares; Mr. Garland—2,079 common shares; Mr. Stachura—1,513 common shares; and Officers as a group—22,862 common shares. The common shares are subject to a risk of forfeiture if, prior to March 3, 2019, the award recipient's employment is terminated or he or she violates any provision of the restricted stock agreement applicable to these common shares. However, these common shares will not be forfeited, and will automatically vest, if, prior to March 3, 2019, the award


recipient’s employment is terminated in connection with a change of control of the Company. These common shares are also subject to restrictions on transfer until March 3, 2019.

(6)Includes restricted stock awards made to the Named Executive Officers and other officers on March 5, 2015. On that date, the Compensation Committee made the following restricted stock awards to the Named Executive Officers: Mr. English—2,471 common shares; Ms. Clark—2,192 common shares; and Officers as a group—8,583 common shares. The common shares are subject to a risk of forfeiture if, prior to March 5, 2018, the award recipient's employment is terminated or he or she violates any provision of the restricted stock agreement applicable to these common shares. However, these common shares will not be forfeited, and will automatically vest, if, prior to March 5, 2018, the award recipient’s employment is terminated in connection with a change of control of the Company. These common shares are also subject to restrictions on transfer until March 5, 2018.

(7)Includes restricted stock awards of 2,214 and 2,192 common shares which are subject to a risk of forfeiture if, prior to August 24, 2018, Mr. Garland's employment is terminated or he violates any provision of the restricted stock agreement applicable to these common shares. However, these common shares will not be forfeited, and will automatically vest, if, prior to August 24, 2018, Mr. Garland's employment is terminated in connection with a change of control of the Company. These common shares are also subject to restrictions on transfer until August 24, 2018.

(8)Includes restricted stock awards of 470 and 4,430 common shares which are subject to a risk of forfeiture if, prior to September 15, 2018, Mr. Stachura's employment is terminated or he violates any provision of the restricted stock agreement applicable to these common shares. However, these common shares will not be forfeited and will automatically vest, if, prior to September 15, 2018, Mr. Stachura's employment is terminated in connection with a change of control of the Company. These common shares are also subject to restrictions on transfer until September 15, 2018.

(9)Does not include RSUs.

Principal Holders of Voting Securities
The following table sets forth certain information, as of March 13, 2015,10, 2017, with respect to the only shareholders known to us to be the beneficial owners of more than 5% of our outstanding Common Shares:

Name and Address of Beneficial Owner

  Amount and Nature
of Beneficial
Ownership		  Percent
of Class		 

State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company(1)

   25,751,138    62.63% 

518 East Broad Street

   

Columbus, OH 43215

   

Dimensional Fund Advisors LP

   2,328,928(2)   5.68% 

Palisades West, Building One, 6300 Bee Cave Road

   

Austin, Texas, 78746

   

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

   2,438,553(3)   5.90% 

100 E. Pratt Street

   

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

   

common shares:
Name and Address of Beneficial Owner Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership Percent of Class
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company(2)
518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215
 25,957,830 61.8%
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.(3)
100 E. Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202
 3,842,390 9.2%
Dimensional Fund Advisors LP(4)
Building One, 6300 Bee Cave Road, Austin, Texas 78746
 2,281,790 5.95%
     
(2) State Auto Mutual exercises sole voting and investment power with respect to such common shares.
(3) Based solely on a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 7, 2017.
(4) Based solely on a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 9, 2017.
(1)

State Auto Mutual exercises sole voting and investment power with respect to such Common Shares.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

(2)

Based solely on a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 5, 2015.

(3)

Based solely on a Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 11, 2015.

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires our officers, directors and persons who own more than 10% of the common shares, referred to as our reporting persons, to file statements of beneficial ownership of our common shares. Based solely on a review of copies of the forms filed under Section 16(a) and furnished to us, we believe that all applicable Section 16(a) filing requirements were complied with during 2016 by our reporting persons, with the following exception: Jessica E. Clark, an officer of the Company, failed to timely file one Form 4 related to the disposition of 1,512 common shares on March 17, 2015. The applicable Form 4 was filed on February 24, 2017.


EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

(At AND BURN RATE

Outstanding Options and Available Shares
The following table provides information regarding the shares of our common shares that may be issued under the 2009 Equity Plan and our Employee Stock Purchase Plan as of December 31, 2014)

Plan Category

  Number of
Securities
to be Issued
upon Exercise
of Outstanding
Options		   Weighted-
Average
Exercise Price
of Outstanding
Options		   Number of
Securities
Remaining Available
for Future Issuance
under Equity
Compensation Plans		 

Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Security Holders(1)

   3,503,989    $21.32     990,668  

Equity Compensation Plans not Approved by Security Holders(2)

   47,943    $30.76     0  
  

 

 

     

 

 

 

Total

   3,551,932       990,668  
  

 

 

     

 

 

 

2016:
Plan Category 
Number of
Securities
to be Issued
upon Exercise
of  Outstanding
Options
 
Weighted-
Average
Exercise Price
of Outstanding
Options
 
Number of
Securities
Remaining Available
for Future Issuance
under Equity
Compensation Plans
Equity Compensation Plans Approved by Security Holders(1) 2,628,517
 $20.69
 2,584,170
Equity Compensation Plans not Approved by Security Holders(2) 22,942
 $30.51
 —
Total 2,651,459
   2,594,170
(1)

Includes 823,807 Common Shares2,364,264 common shares available for issuance under our 2009 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan and 166,861 Common Shares229,906 common shares available for issuance under our Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Does not include RSUs which have been or may be awarded to our outside directors under our Directors’the Old RSU Plan. Because RSUs are settled only upon the conclusion of an outside director’sdirector's board service, and then in cash or Common Shares,common shares, as elected by the outside director, the number of Common Sharescommon shares to be issued or remaining available for future issuance under our Directors’the Old RSU Plan or the Proposed RSU Plan, if approved by shareholders at the Annual Meeting, cannot be determined at this time.

(2)

Our only equity compensation plan that has not been approved by our shareholders is the 1998 State Auto Agent’sAgent's Stock Option Plan, which plan terminated by its terms in May 2008 and was not renewed. A description of this plan follows these footnotes.

See below "1998 State Auto Agent's Stock Option Plan."

1998 State Auto Agent’s Stock Option
Burn Rate
As of December 31, 2016, our three-year average annual "burn rates" or percentages of weighted average shares outstanding granted under the 2009 Equity Plan

in the prior three years, was 0.73%.

1998 State Auto Agent’s Stock Option Plan
Our Board of Directors adopted the 1998 State Auto Agent’sAgent's Stock Option Plan (the “Agent’s"Agent’s Option Plan”Plan") to encourage selected independent insurance agencies that represent us and our affiliates (the “State"State Auto

Agents” Agents") to acquire or increase and retain a financial interest in our Company in order to strengthen the mutuality of interests between the State Auto Agents and our Company’sCompany's shareholders. The Agent’sAgent's Option Plan is administered by a plan administration committee consisting of at least three members appointed by our Board of Directors. The Agent’sAgent's Option Plan terminated by its terms in May 2008, and we did not renew it.

Under the Agent’sAgent's Option Plan, State Auto Agents who became participants were offered nonqualified stock options to purchase Common Shares.common shares. The number of options granted to a participant was based on the formula set forth in the Agent’sAgent's Option Plan and in each participant’s participation agreement. The exercise price of options granted under the Agent’s Option Plan was equal to the last reported sale price of the Common Sharescommon shares on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the day of the grant. The options granted became exercisable on the first day of the calendar year following the participant’sparticipant's achievement of specific production and profitability requirements over a period not greater than two calendar years from date of grant or a portion thereof in the first calendar year in which a participant commenced participation in the Agent’sAgent's Option Plan. Subject to certain restrictions, participants may exercise options that become vested. Each option has a term of ten years. If an option is not fully exercised by its expiration date, it will terminate to the extent not previously exercised.

If a participant’s agency agreement terminates, or if the participant fails to meet its performance criteria as set forth in its participation agreement and in the Agent’sAgent's Option Plan, or the participant fails to pay on time any amounts due under its agency agreement, the option granted to such participant, to the extent not vested, will terminate.

The Common Sharescommon shares subject to the Agent’sAgent's Option Plan have been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Therefore, these Common Sharescommon shares are freely tradeable once acquired upon the exercise of the options, unless such Common Sharescommon shares are acquired by a participant who is considered an “affiliate”"affiliate" of the Company.



RELATED PERSON TRANSACTIONS

Policies and Procedures for Review and Approval of Related Person Transactions

Policies and Procedures for Review and Approval of Related Person Transactions
We review all relationships and transactions in which our Company and our directors and executive officers or their immediate family members are participants to determine whether such persons have a direct or indirect material interest. Our Company’sCompany's legal staff is primarily responsible for the development and implementation of processes and controls to obtain information from the directors and executive officers with respect to related person transactions and for then determining, based on the facts and circumstances, whether we or a related person has a direct or indirect material interest in the transaction. As required under SEC rules, transactions that are determined to be directly or indirectly material to us or a related person are disclosed in our proxy statement.

We also have a standing Independent Committee which principally serves to review related person transactions between or among us and our subsidiaries, on the one hand, and State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates, on the other. In the context of transactional opportunities, the Independent Committee helps determine which entity, our Company or State Auto Mutual, is best suited to take advantage of the transactional opportunity presented by a third party. As specified in its charter, the Independent Committee assists our Board in monitoring all related person transactions, not just those involving State Auto Mutual and its subsidiaries and affiliates.

Transactions Involving State Auto Mutual
(1)(2)(3)

Management and Cost Sharing Agreements

2,3,4

Through various management and cost sharing agreements, State Auto P&C generally provides the employees to perform allmost organizational, operational and management functions for insurers in the State Auto Group (defined below in footnote 3) while State Auto Mutual generally provides certain operating facilities, including our corporate headquarters. These management and cost sharing agreements are described below.

We operate and manage our businesses in conjunction with State Auto Mutual and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates under a Management and Operations Agreement that we call the “2005"2015 Management Agreement.”" The 20052015 Management Agreement is strictly a cost sharing agreement. Accordingly, no management fees are paid under the 20052015 Management Agreement. Under the 20052015 Management Agreement, everymost executive, managerial, technical, professional, supervisory and clerical functionfunctions for the companies named below waswere performed by an employee of State Auto P&C.

(1)

During 2014, our subsidiaries were State Auto P&C, Milbank, State Auto Insurance Company of Ohio (“SAOH”), Stateco Financial Services, Inc. (“Stateco”), SA Software Shelf, Inc., and 518 Property Management and Leasing LLC (“518 PML”).

(2)

State Auto Mutual’s subsidiaries and affiliates that during 2014 were parties to the 2005 Management Agreement were Meridian Security Insurance Company (“Meridian Security”), Meridian Citizens Mutual Insurance Company (“Meridian Citizens Mutual”) (Meridian Security and Meridian Citizens Mutual are collectively referred to as the “MIGI Insurers”), Meridian Insurance Group, Inc. (“MIGI”) and Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut (“Patrons CT”). Meridian Citizens Mutual was merged into State Auto Mutual effective July 2, 2014. MIGI was merged into State Auto Holdings, Inc. effective May 31, 2014. During 2014, additional subsidiaries of State Auto Mutual included State Auto Insurance Company of Wisconsin (“SAWI”) and the “Rockhill Companies” which consist of Rockhill Holding Company, Rockhill Insurance Company (“RIC”), Plaza Insurance Company (“Plaza”), American Compensation Insurance Company (“American Compensation”), Bloomington Compensation Insurance Company (“Bloomington Compensation”) (RIC, Plaza, American Compensation and Bloomington Compensation are collectively referred to as the “Rockhill Insurers”), National Environmental Coverage Corporation (“NECC”), RTW, Inc. (“RTW”), Rockhill Insurance Services, LLC, Rockhill Underwriting Management, LLC and Risk Evaluation and Design, LLC (“RED”).

(3)

The State Auto Group refers to State Auto P&C, Milbank, SAOH, State Auto Mutual, SAWI, Meridian Security, Patrons CT and the Rockhill Insurers.

We have a Management and Operations Agreement that we call the “2000"2000 Midwest Management Agreement”Agreement" among State Auto P&C, State Auto Mutual and SAWI. During 2014,2016, SAWI paid management fees in the amount of $0.18$0.17 million to State Auto P&C under the 2000 Midwest Management Agreement.

We have a Management and Operations Agreement that we call the “Rockhill"Rockhill Management Agreement”Agreement" among State Auto P&C, State Auto Mutual and the Rockhill Companies (except RED). The Rockhill Management Agreement is strictly a cost sharing agreement. Accordingly, no management fees are paid under the Rockhill Management Agreement.

The 20052015 Management Agreement addresses procedures for potential conflicts of interest. Generally, business opportunities presented to the common officers of the companies, other than business opportunities that meet certain criteria, must be presented
2, The State Auto Group refers to State Auto Property Casualty Insurance Company ("State Auto P&C"), Milbank Insurance Company ("Milbank"), State Auto Insurance Company of Ohio ("SAOH"), State Auto Mutual, State Auto Insurance Company of Wisconsin ("SAWI"), Meridian Security Insurance Company ("Meridian"), Patrons Mutual Insurance Company of Connecticut ("Patrons"), Rockhill Insurance Company ("RIC"), Plaza Insurance Company ("Plaza"), American Compensation Insurance Company ("ACIC") and Bloomington Compensation Insurance Company ("BCIC").
3, During 2016, our subsidiaries were State Auto P&C, Milbank, SAOH, Stateco Financial Services, Inc. (“Stateco”) and 518 Property Management and Leasing LLC ("518 PML").
4 State Auto Mutual's subsidiaries and affiliates that during 2016 were parties to the 2015 Management Agreement were Meridian, Patrons, State Auto Holdings, Inc., Facilitators, Inc., CDC Holding, Inc., Partners General Insurance Agency, LLC and Network E&S Insurance Brokers, LLC. During 2016, additional subsidiaries of State Auto Mutual included SAWI and the "Rockhill Companies" which consist of Rockhill Holding Company, RIC, Plaza, ACIC, BCIC (RIC, Plaza, ACIC and BCIC are collectively referred to as the "Rockhill Insurers"), National Environmental Coverage Corporation ("NECC"), RTW, Inc. ("RTW"), Rockhill Insurance Services, LLC, Rockhill Underwriting Management, LLC and Risk Evaluation and Design, LLC ("RED").


to Independent Committees of State Auto Mutual’sMutual's and our boards of directors. These committees review and evaluate the business opportunity using such factors as each considers relevant. Based upon such review and evaluation, these committees then make recommendations to each respective board of directors as to whether or not such business opportunities should be pursued and, if so, by which company. The boards of directors of State Auto Mutual or its insurance subsidiaries and our Company or any of our subsidiaries must then act on the recommendation of their committees after considering all other factors deemed relevant to them.

Each

The 2015 Management Agreement has a ten-year term and automatically renews for an additional ten-year term, provided that any party to the agreement can terminate its own participation at the end of the 2005 Management Agreement andterm then in effect by giving at least one-year advance written notice of non-renewal to the other parties, with the exception that Patrons may terminate its participation on 90 days' notice. The 2000 Midwest Management Agreement has a ten-year term and automatically renews for an additional ten-year term, provided that any party to the agreement couldcan terminate its own participation at the end of the term then in effect by giving at least two years’years' advance written notice of non-renewalnon-renewal. Any party to the other parties, with the exception that Patrons CT may terminate its participation on 90 days’ notice. Any partyeither of these agreements could also terminate its participation upon events constituting a change of control or potential change of control (as defined in the 20052015 Management Agreement and the 2000 Midwest Management Agreement) of the Company, or upon agreement of the parties. The applicable management agreement automatically terminates with respect to a party (and only that party) if such party is subject to insolvency proceedings. The Rockhill Management Agreement has a ten-year term and automatically renews for successive ten-year periods, provided that any party may terminate its own participation at the end of the term then in effect by giving the other parties at least 60 days’days' advance written notice.

Other Agreements

State Auto P&C, Milbank, State Auto Mutual and various insurance subsidiaries and affiliates of State Auto Mutual have entered into a Consulting Services Agreement with RTW whereby RTW provides claims and case management services for these insurers’ workers’ compensation programs. RTW investigates potential “high risk” workers’ compensation claims and assigns RTW nurses for ongoing case management for those claims that meet certain criteria. During 2014, RTW was compensated on a cost basis for some of its services and on an hourly basis for other services rendered. The Consulting Services Agreement has a one-year term and automatically renews for additional one-year terms unless 60 days’ advance written notice of non-renewal is given. In addition, a party may terminate the agreement as to itself upon 30 days’ advance written notice. During 2014, RTW was paid $2.60 million under this agreement.

State Auto P&C, Milbank, State Auto Mutual and various insurance subsidiaries and affiliates of State Auto Mutual were parties to an Underwriting Management Agreement (“UMA”) with RED. Under this agreement, the State Auto insurers delegated to RED the authority to act as their underwriting manager in the performance of certain underwriting and marketing functions associated with insurance coverages for certain program business. As of December 31, 2013, all RED programs subject to the UMA had been terminated due to unprofitability, and the business is in runoff. During 2014, RED was paid $0.4 million under the UMA.

Since January 1987, State Auto P&C and State Auto Mutual have participated in an intercompany pooling arrangement (the “State"State Auto Pool”Pool" or the “Pooling Arrangement”"Pooling Arrangement") which has been amended from time to time,

including amendments adding participants to the Pooling Arrangement and adjusting pooling percentages. The Pooling Arrangement generally covers all of the property and casualty insurance written by the pooled companies. Under the terms of the Pooling Arrangement, State Auto P&C and the other pooling participants cede all of their direct insurance business to State Auto Mutual, and State Auto Mutual then cedes a percentage of the pooled business to State Auto P&C and the other pooling participants and retains the balance. From January 1 through June 30, 2014,During 2016, parties to the Pooling Arrangement and their allocated pooling percentages were as follows: State Auto Mutual—34.0%34.5%; State Auto P&C—51.0%; Milbank—14.0%; SAWI—0.0%; SAOH—0.0%; Meridian Security—Meridian—0.0%; Meridian Citizens Mutual—0.5%; Patrons CT—Patrons—0.5%; RIC—0.0%; Plaza—0.0%; American Compensation—ACIC—0.0%; and Bloomington Compensation—BCIC—0.0%. Beginning July 1, 2014, Meridian Citizens Mutual was no longer a party to the Pooling Arrangement because it was merged into State Auto Mutual, thereby increasing State Auto Mutual’s pooling percentage by 0.5% to 34.5%.

Stateco undertook on behalf of State Auto Mutual, State Auto P&C, Milbank, SAWI, SAOH, Meridian, Security, Patrons, CT, RIC, Plaza, American CompensationACIC and Bloomington CompensationBCIC the responsibility of managing those companies’companies' investable assets. In consideration of this service, Stateco charged such companies an annual fee, paid quarterly, based on a percentage of the average investable assets of each company. For 2014,2016, the percentage was 0.2% for bonds and 0.5% for equities, with a 0.1% bonus available, other than under the State Auto Mutual and SAOH agreements, if the stock portfolio return exceeds that of the S&P 500 Index for the same period. During 2014,2016, the following companies incurred the following fees to Stateco: State Auto Mutual— $1.17$1.6 million; State Auto P&C—$3.834.3 million; Milbank—$0.961.1 million; SAWI—$24,763;26,019; SAOH—$36,595; Meridian Security—34,791; Meridian—$0.150.16 million; Meridian Citizens Mutual—Patrons—$41,379; Patrons CT—$68,826;77,707; RIC—$0.15 million; Plaza—$45,908; American Compensation—60,496; ACIC—$43,726;38,719; and Bloomington Compensation—BCIC—$23,203.25,251. We believe the fees charged by Stateco are comparable to those charged by independent investment managers under similar circumstances.

In May 2009, State Auto P&C and Milbank entered into separate Credit Agreements with State Auto Mutual. Under these Credit Agreements, State Auto Mutual borrowed $50.0 million from State Auto P&C and $20.0 from Milbank, or a total of $70.0 million, on an unsecured basis. Interest is payable semi-annually at a fixed annual interest rate of 7.00%. Principal is payable in May 2019. During 2014,2016, State Auto Mutual made interest payments to State Auto P&C and Milbank in the amount of $3.5 million and $1.4 million, respectively.

State Auto Mutual has guaranteed the adequacy of State Auto P&C’s&C's loss and loss expense reserves as of December 31, 1990. Pursuant to the guarantee, State Auto Mutual has agreed to reimburse State Auto P&C for any losses and loss expenses in excess of State Auto P&C’s&C's December 31, 1990, reserves ($65.5 million) that may develop from claims that have occurred on or prior to that date. This guarantee ensures that any deficiency in the reserves of State Auto P&C as of December 31, 1990, under the pooling arrangement percentages effective on December 31, 1990, will be reimbursed by State Auto Mutual. As of December 31, 2014,2016, there had been no adverse development of this liability. As of December 31, 2014,2016, the potential liability remaining under this guaranty was estimated to be $0.36 million.

$51,054.

518 PML leases office buildings it owns in West Des Moines, Iowa, and near Nashville, Tennessee, to State Auto Mutual for its Des Moines Center Office and Southern Regional Office,Nashville Center, respectively. State Auto Mutual paid 518 PML $0.22 million in rent for the Iowa location and $0.41 million in rent for the Nashville office in 2014.2016. We believe these rents reflect market rates.

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



OTHER MATTERS
General

Ernst & Young LLP served as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2014. It is anticipated that representatives

Other Proposals at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Management does not know of Ernst & Young LLP will be present atany other matters which may come before the Annual Meeting. However, if any other matters properly come before the Annual Meeting, and will have an opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so. Such representatives will be available to respond to appropriate questions. The Audit Committee has selected Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2015. See “Proposal Three: Ratification of Selection of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.”

Audit and Other Services Fees

All services to be provided by Ernst & Young LLP are pre-approved byit is the Audit Committee, including audit services, audit-related services, tax services and certain other services. See “—Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures.” Aggregate fees billed to or incurred by the Company for services performed for the years ending December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively, by Ernst & Young LLP were as follows:

   2014   2013 

Audit fees(1)

  $1,629,645    $1,623,904  

Audit related fees(2)

   —     —  

Tax fees(2)(3)

   43,115     44,135  

All other fees(2)

   —     —  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

Total

  $1,672,760    $1,668,039  
  

 

 

   

 

 

 

(1)

Includes services rendered for the audit of our annual financial statements, review of financial statements included in our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other audit services normally provided by Ernst & Young LLP in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.

(2)

The Audit Committee has considered whether the provision of these services is compatible with maintaining the independence of our registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee must pre-approve any non-audit services performed by our independent registered public accounting firm to the extent such services are not prohibited by law from being performed by such independent registered public accounting firm. See “—Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures.”

(3)

Includes services for tax research and compliance.

Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

The Audit Committee has adopted a policy under which audit and non-audit services to be rendered by our independent registered public accounting firm are pre-approved. The Audit Committee’s policy is to pre-approve all auditing services and our useintention of the independent public accountantspersons named in the accompanying form of proxy to perform any non-audit or tax services which are not prohibited by Section 10A(g) ofvote the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, subject to the de minimus exception for non-audit services describedproxy in Section 10A(i)(1)(B) ofaccordance with their judgment on such Act. No services were provided by Ernst & Young LLP in 2014 or 2013 that were approved by the Audit Committee under SEC Regulation S-X Section 2-01(c)(7)(i)(C) (which addresses certain services considered de minimus approved by the Audit Committee after such services have been performed).

matters.

FUTURE SHAREHOLDER PROPOSALS

Future Shareholder Proposals
In order to bring business, including a proposal, before the 2016 Annual Meeting2018 annual meeting of Shareholders,shareholders, expected to be held in May 2016,2018, a shareholder must comply with the notice procedures set forth in Section 1.15 of the Company’s codeCode of regulations.Regulations. To be considered timely, a shareholder’sshareholder's notice must be given to the Company’s secretaryCompany's Corporate Secretary and delivered either in person or by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, and received at the principal executive offices of the Company, 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days prior to the meeting. However, in the event that notice or public disclosure of the date of the meeting is given or made by the Company at least 75 days prior to the meeting, to be timely a shareholder’sshareholder's notice must be received by the Company no later than the close of business on the 10th day following the day on which such notice or public disclosure of the date of the meeting was given or made by the Company.

A shareholder’sshareholder's notice to the Company’s secretaryCompany's Corporate Secretary must set forth (i) a description in reasonable detail of the business desired to be brought before the meeting and reasons for conducting such business at the meeting, including the complete text of any resolutions to be presented at the meeting, (ii) the name and address, as they appear on the Company’sCompany's books, of the shareholder proposing such business, (iii) the class and number of shares

of the Company beneficially owned and of record by such shareholder, (iv) the name in which such shares are registered on the books of the Company, (v) a representation that the shareholder intends to appear at the meeting in person or by proxy to submit the business specified in such notice, and (vi) any material interest of the shareholder in the business to be submitted. In addition, the shareholder making such proposal must promptly provide any other information reasonably requested by the Company.

In addition to the information required above to be given by a shareholder who intends to submit business at a meeting of shareholders, if the business to be submitted is the nomination of a person or persons for election to the board of directors, then such shareholder’sshareholder's notice to the Company’s secretaryCompany's Corporate Secretary must also set forth, as to each person whom the shareholder proposes to nominate for election as a director, (A) the name, age, business address and, if known, residence address of such person, (B) the principal occupation or employment of such person, (C) the class and number of shares of the Company which are beneficially owned by such person, (D) any other information relating to such person that is required to be disclosed in solicitations of proxies for election of directors or is otherwise required by the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (E) the written consent of such person to be named in the proxy statement as a nominee and to serve as a director if elected and (F) a description of all arrangements or understandings between such shareholder and each nominee and any other person or persons (naming such person or persons) pursuant to which the nomination or nominations are to be made by such shareholder.

Notwithstanding the foregoing notice requirements, a shareholder who seeks to have any proposal included in the Company’sCompany's proxy statement must comply with the requirements of Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. One of these requirements is the proposal must be received by us at our principal executive offices on or prior to 120 days in advance of the first anniversary date of this Proxy Statement.

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE
Future Electronic Access to Proxy Materials and the Annual Report
Registered shareholders can further reduce the costs incurred by the Company by consenting to receive all future proxy statements, proxy cards, annual reports to shareholders and Notices of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, as appropriate, electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery of future proxy materials, you must vote your common shares electronically via the Internet by logging on to 

www.proxyvote.com and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access shareholder communications electronically in future years. You will be responsible for any fees or charges that you would typically pay for access to the Internet.



Annual Report on Form 10-K and Additional Information About State Auto Financial Corporation
A copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, including the financial statements, but not including exhibits, will be provided at no charge to each person to whom this Proxy Statement is delivered upon the written request of such person addressed to State Auto Financial Corporation, Attn: Investor Relations, 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, or by contacting Investor Relations at (800) 622-6757 (U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico) or (781) 575-4735 (outside the U.S.) or via our website at www.stateauto.com.
You may read without charge, and copy at prescribed rates, all or any portion of the Proxy Statement or any reports, statements or other information in the files at the public reference facilities of the SEC’s principal office at Room 1580, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20549. You can request copies of these documents upon payment of a duplicating fee by writing to the SEC. You may call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the operation of its public reference rooms. Our filings are also available on the Internet website maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov.
If you would like to receive further information about State Auto Financial Corporation, please visit our website at www.stateauto.com. The "Investors" section of our website contains management presentations, financial information, stock quotes and links to our filings with the SEC.
In this Proxy Statement, we state that information and documents are available on our website. These references are merely intended to suggest where our shareholders may obtain additional information. The materials and other information presented on our website are not incorporated in and should not otherwise be considered part of this Proxy Statement.
By Order of the Board of Directors
melissacenterssig1.jpg
MELISSA A. CENTERS
Secretary




Appendix A-State Auto Financial Corporation's 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
2017 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
(Effective May 5, 2017)
STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION
2017 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
(Effective May 5, 2017)
ARTICLE I
ESTABLISHMENT, PURPOSE AND DURATION

1.1    Establishment. The Company, State Auto Financial Corporation, hereby establishes an incentive compensation plan, to be known as the "State Auto Financial Corporation 2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan," as set forth in this document. The Plan permits the grant of Restricted Stock, Deferred Stock Units, Cash‑Based Awards (including PAU's), Performance Stock Awards, Performance Unit Awards and Other Stock-Based Awards. The Plan was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company on March 3, 2017 and shall become effective on the date the Plan is approved by the holders of at least a majority of the outstanding shares of voting stock of the Company at a meeting of the shareholders of the Company (the "Effective Date").

1.2    Purpose of the Plan. The Plan is intended to advance the interests of the Company, its Affiliates and its shareholders and promote the long-term growth of the Company by providing Employees with incentives to maximize shareholder value and to otherwise contribute to the success of the Company and its Affiliates, thereby aligning the interests of Employees with the interests of the Company's shareholders and providing Employees with additional incentives to continue their employment with the Company or its Affiliates.

1.3    Duration of the Plan. The Plan shall continue indefinitely until it is terminated pursuant to Section 16(a)11.1. The applicable provisions of the Plan will continue in effect with respect to an Award granted under the Plan for as long as such Award remains outstanding.

ARTICLE II

DEFINITIONS

Each word and phrase defined in this Article shall have the meaning set forth below throughout the Plan, unless the context in which any such word or phrase appears reasonably requires a broader, narrower or different meaning.
2.1    "Affiliate" means any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or association, trust or other entity or organization which, directly or indirectly, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the Company. For purposes of the preceding sentence, "control" (including, with correlative meanings, the terms "controlled by" and "under common control with"), as used with respect to any entity or organization, shall mean the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power (a) to vote more than fifty percent (50%) of the securities having ordinary voting power for the election of directors or comparable individuals of the controlled entity or organization, or (b) to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the controlled entity or organization, whether through the ownership of voting securities or by contract or otherwise.

2.2    "Authorized Shares"shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 4.1(a).

2.3    "Award" means, individually or collectively, a grant under the Plan of Restricted Stock, a Deferred Stock Unit, a Cash‑Based Award (including a PAU), a Performance Stock Award, a Performance Unit Award, or an Other Stock-Based Award, in each case subject to the terms and provisions of the Plan.

2.4    "Award Agreement" means a written or electronic agreement that sets forth the terms and conditions applicable to an Award granted under the Plan.

2.5"Board"means the Board of Directors of the Company.


2.6    "Cash‑Based Award" means a cash Award granted pursuant to Article VII.

2.7    "Change in Control" means, except as otherwise provided in an Award Agreement, the occurrence of any of the following during the term of the applicable Award Agreement:

(a)any "person" as defined in Section 3(a)(9) of the Exchange Act and as used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d) thereof, including a "group" as defined in Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, but excluding the Company and any Affiliate and any employee benefit plan sponsored or maintained by the Company or any Affiliate (including any trustee of such plan acting as trustee) and excluding State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, directly or indirectly, becomes the "beneficial owner" (as defined in Rule 13d-3 under the Exchange Act, as amended from time to time) of securities of the Company representing 30% or more of the combined voting power of the Company's then outstanding securities;

(b)during any period of 24 consecutive months during the existence of the Plan, the individuals who, at the beginning of such period, constitute the Board (the "Incumbent Directors") cease for any reason other than death to constitute at least a majority of the Board; provided, however, that a director who was not a director at the beginning of such 24-month period shall be deemed to have satisfied such 24-month requirement (and be an Incumbent Director) if such director was elected by, or on the recommendation of, or with the approval of, at least two-thirds of the directors who then qualified as Incumbent Directors either actually (because they were directors at the beginning of such 24-month period) or by prior operation of this Section 2.7(b);

(c)the occurrence of a transaction requiring shareholder approval for the acquisition of the Company by an entity other than the Company or subsidiary through purchase of assets, by merger or otherwise; or

(d)the occurrence of a "Rule 13e-3 transaction" (as defined in Rule 13e-3 under the Exchange Act) requiring approval by the shareholders of the Company.

2.7    "Code" means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time.

2.8    "Committee" means the Compensation Committee or, if the Compensation Committee chooses to delegate its duties, a committee of at least two persons who are members of the Compensation Committee and are appointed by the Compensation Committee to administer the Plan. Each member of the Committee in respect of his or her participation in any decision with respect to an Award that is intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code must satisfy the requirements of “outside director” status within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code; provided, however, that the failure to satisfy such requirement shall not affect the validity of the action of any committee otherwise duly authorized and acting in the matter. The requirements of Rule 16b-3(d)(1) of the General Rules and Regulations under the Exchange Act with respect to committee action must be satisfied for any Awards authorized by the Committee that are intended to be exempt under Rule 16b-3 of the General Rules and Regulations under the Exchange Act.

2.9    "Company" means State Auto Financial Corporation, an Ohio corporation, or any successor (by reincorporation, merger or otherwise).

2.10    "Compensation Committee" means the Compensation Committee of the Board, the composition and governance of which is subject to Section 5605(d) of the NASDAQ Stock Market Rules.

2.11    "Corporate Event" shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 4.5(a).

2.12    "Covered Employee" means an Employee who is a "covered employee," as defined in Section 162(m) of the Code and the regulations and other guidance promulgated by the United States Department of Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service under Section 162(m) of the Code, or any successor statute.

2.13    "Deferred Stock Unit" means a deferred stock unit credited to a Participant’s ledger account maintained by the Company pursuant to Article VI.

2.14    "Deferred Stock Unit Award" means an Award granted pursuant to Article VI.

2.15    "Disability" means, as determined by the Committee in its discretion exercised in good faith, (a) in the case of an Award that is exempt from the application of the requirements of Section 409A and is granted to a Participant who is covered by the Company's long-term disability insurance policy or plan, a physical or mental condition of the Participant that would entitle him or her to payment of disability income payments under such long-term disability insurance policy or plan as then in effect,


(b) in the case of an Award that is exempt from the application of the requirements of Section 409A and is granted to a Participant who is not covered by the Company's long-term disability insurance policy or plan for whatever reason, or in the event the Company does not maintain such a long-term disability insurance policy or plan, a permanent and total disability as defined in section 22(e)(3) of the Code and (c) in the case of an Award that is not exempt from the application of the requirements of Section 409A, a physical or mental condition of the Participant where (i) the Participant is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months, or (ii) the Participant is, by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months, receiving income replacement benefits for a period of not less than three months under an accident and health plan covering employees of the Company. A determination of Disability may be made by a physician selected or approved by the Committee and, in this respect, the Participant shall submit to an examination by such physician upon request by the Committee.

2.16    "Dividend Equivalent" means a payment equivalent in amount to a dividend paid with respect to a share of the Stock to the Company’s shareholders.

2.17    "Effective Date" shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 1.1.

2.18    "Employee" means (a) a person employed by the Company or any Affiliate as a common law employee and (b) a person who has agreed to become a common law employee of the Company or any Affiliate and is expected to become such within three (3) months after the date of grant of the Award, but excluding (c) any person employed as a temporary employee, leased employee or contractor.

2.19    "Exchange Act" means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires our officers, directors and persons who own more than 10%or any successor act.

2.20    "Fair Market Value" of the Common Shares, referred toStock as our reporting persons, to file statements of beneficial ownership of our Common Shares. Based solelyany particular date means,

(a)    if the Stock is traded on a review of copiesstock exchange, and

(i)if the Stock is traded on that date, the closing sale price of the Stock on that date; or

(ii)if the Stock is not traded on that date, the closing sale price of the Stock on the last trading date immediately preceding that date;

as reported on the principal securities exchange on which the Stock is traded; or
(b)    if the Stock is traded in the over-the-counter market, and

(i)    if the Stock is traded on that date, the average between the high bid and low asked price on
that date; or

(ii)    if the Stock is not traded on that date, the average between the high bid and low asked price
on the last trading date immediately preceding that date;

as reported in such over-the-counter market; provided, however, that (x) if the Stock is not so traded, or (y) if, in the discretion of the forms filedCommittee, another means of determining the fair market value of a share of Stock at such date shall be necessary or advisable, the Committee may provide for another method or means for determining such fair market value, which method or means shall comply with the requirements of a reasonable valuation method as described under Section 16(a)409A.
2.21    "Fiscal Year" means the Company's fiscal year.

2.22    "Forfeiture Determination" shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 4.7(a).

2.23    "Other Stock-Based Award" means an equity-based or equity-related Award not otherwise described by the terms and furnished to us, we believe that all applicable Section 16(a) filing requirements were complied with during 2014 by our reporting persons, with the following exception: Joel E. Brown, an officerprovisions of the Company, failedPlan that is granted pursuant to timely fileArticle VIII.

2.24    "Participant" means a person who has been granted an Award or any person who is entitled to receive shares of Stock or cash under an Award.



2.25    "PAU" means a Cash‑Based Award in the form of a Performance Unit Award granted to a Participant pursuant to Article VII.

2.26    "Performance-Based Compensation" means compensation under an Award that is intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code for deductibility of remuneration paid to Covered Employees.

2.27    "Performance Goals" means one Form 4 relatedor more of the criteria described in Section 7.2 on which the performance goals applicable to a Performance Stock Award or a Performance Unit Award are based.

2.28    "Performance Stock Award" means an employment anniversaryAward designated as a performance stock award granted to a Participant pursuant to Article VII.

2.29    "Performance Unit Award" means an Award designated as a performance unit award granted to a Participant pursuant to Article VII.

2.30    "Period of 12.533 Common SharesRestriction" means the period during which Restricted Stock is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (based on July 1, 2014.

OTHER MATTERS

Management does not knowthe passage of anytime, the achievement of performance goals, or upon the occurrence of other matters which may come beforeevents as determined by the Annual Meeting. However, if any other matters properly come beforeCommittee, in its discretion), as provided in Article V.


2.31    "Plan" means the Annual Meeting, it is the intention of the persons named in the accompanying form of proxy to vote the proxy in accordance with their judgment on such matters.

We will bear the cost of solicitation of proxies. In addition to the use of the mails, proxies may be solicited personally or by telephone or electronic mail. Proxies may be solicited by our directors, officers, and regular employees, who will not receive any additional compensation for their solicitation services. We will reimburse banks, brokers, and nominees for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred in sending proxy material to the beneficial owners of shares held by them. If there are follow-up requests for proxies, we may employ other persons for such purpose.

JAMES A. YANO

Secretary

Exhibit A

[Proposed change is underlined for reference purposes.]

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

1991 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE

AND

DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLAN

Section I – Purpose

This 1991 Employee Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”) of State Auto Financial Corporation an Ohio corporation (the “Company”), is established for2017 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as set forth in this document as it may be amended from time to time.


2.32    "Preexisting Plan"means the benefitState Auto Financial Corporation 2009 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan. After the Effective Date, no further awards will be granted under the Preexisting Plan.

2.33    "Restricted Stock" means shares of the Eligible Employees of the Company and its parent and subsidiary corporations. The purpose ofrestricted Stock issued or granted under the Plan ispursuant to provide each Eligible EmployeeArticle V.

2.34    "Restricted Stock Award" means an authorization by the Committee to issue or transfer Restricted Stock to a Participant.

2.35    "Retirement" means, unless otherwise determined by the Committee, an Employee's Termination of Employment after attaining age 55 and completing at least 5 years of service with an opportunity to acquire or increase a proprietary interest in the Company. The Plan is intended to meet the requirements of Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

Section II – Agent

National City Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, is hereby appointed to act as agent of the Company and of the participants under this Plan (the “Agent”).

Section III – Eligible Employees

(a) All employees of the Company or its parent or subsidiary corporations, as defined in an Affiliate.


2.36    "Section 424409A" means Section 409A of the Code are eligible to participate inand the Plan (“Eligible Employees”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, an individual who is employed by an entity acquiredregulations and other guidance promulgated by the CompanyUnited States Department of Treasury or its parent or a subsidiary corporation, shall be deemed to be an Eligible Employee, in anticipation of and conditioned on, becoming an employeethe United States Internal Revenue Service under Section 409A of the Company or its parent or a subsidiary corporation, and therefore, an Eligible Employee as of the commencement date of an applicable Subscription Period. Such designation as an Eligible Employee shall be solely for the purpose of the individual’s eligibility to enroll in the Plan during an applicable Enrollment Period prior to the applicable Subscription Period. In the event an individual is not an employee of the Company or its parent or a subsidiary corporation as of the commencement of a Subscription Period, the individual shall not be an Eligible Employee or become a Participant in the Plan.

(b) A person who is otherwise an Eligible Employee shall not be permitted to purchase stock under the Plan to the extent (i) it would cause the person to own shares of stock (including shares which would be owned if all outstanding options to purchase stock owned by such person were exercised) which possess five percent (5%) or more of the total combined voting power or value of all classes of stock of the Company, its parentCode, or any subsidiary, or (ii) it would cause such person to have rights to purchase shares undersuccessor statute.


2.37    "Stock" means the Plan and under all other stock purchase plans of the Company, its parent and its subsidiaries which accrue at a rate which exceeds $25,000 of fair market value of such shares for each calendar year in which such right is outstanding. For this purpose, a right to purchase stock accrues when it first becomes exercisable during the calendar year. The number of shares of stock under one right may not be carried over to any other right.

Section IV – Enrollment and Subscription Periods

In order to participate in the Plan, an Eligible Employee must enroll in the Plan. Enrollment will take place during the “Enrollment Periods” which shall be from the first through fourteenth day of May and of November of each year commencing with November 1991. Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective June 1, 2008, the Enrollment Periods shall be from the first through fourteenth day of June and December, with the first such revised Enrollment Period to be held on the first through the fourteenth day of December, 2008. In addition, an

initial Enrollment Period shall take place commencing with the date of adoption of this Plan through the effective date of the original registration of stock under this Plan with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any person who is an Eligible Employee and who desires to subscribe for the purchase of stock must file with the Company an authorization for payroll deduction and subscription agreement during an Enrollment Period. Such authorization shall be effective for the immediately following subscription period. There shall be two subscription periods (each a “Subscription Period”) each and every 12 months during the term of this Plan, one period commencing on the first of June and ending on the following November 30, and a second period commencing on the first day of December and ending on the following May 31. Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective June 1, 2008, one Subscription Period shall commence on the first of January and end on the following June 30, and one Subscription Period shall commence on the first of July and end on the following December 31, with such revised Subscription Periods to begin as of January 1, 2009. Further, the period of December 1 through December 31, 2008 shall not be part of any Subscription Period. In addition, an initial stub Subscription Period shall commence upon the first day following completion of the initial Enrollment Period and shall end on the following May 31 or November 30, whichever is earlier. The offering of stock under this Plan shall occur only during a Subscription Period and shall be made only to Eligible Employees who are participants as of the first day of such Subscription Period. Once enrolled, the Company will inform the Trustee of such fact and an Eligible Employee will be a “Participant” under the Plan and shall continue to participate in the Plan for each succeeding Subscription Period until he or she terminates his or her participation or ceases to be an Eligible Employee. If a Participant desires to change his or her rate of contribution he or she may do so effective for the next Subscription Period by filing a new authorization for payroll deduction and subscription agreement with the Company during the Enrollment Period immediately preceding such Subscription Period.

Section V – Term of Plan

This Plan shall be in effect from May 16, 1991 until such time as it is terminated by order of the Board of Directors of the Company. This Plan shall be submitted to the stockholders of the Company for approval as soon as practical but in any event not later than 12 months after the date of adoption by the Board of Directors.

Section VI – Number of Shares to be offered

The total number of shares to be available under Section IX of the Plan is 3,650,000 common shares, without par value, of the Company (“Stock”) which may be authorized but unissued shares or issued shares reacquired byCompany.


2.38    "Substantial Risk of Forfeiture" shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 409A.

2.39    "Termination of Employment" means (a) if the Award Agreement is not exempt from and is subject to Section 409A, the termination of the Award recipient’s employment with the Company and heldall Affiliates in a manner that constitutes a "separation from service" (as that term is defined for purposes of Section 409A using the default rules) as treasury shares. Whendetermined by the Committee and (b) if the Award Agreement is exempt from and not subject to Section 409A, the termination of the Award recipient's employment relationship with the Company and all Affiliates as determined by the Committee.

ARTICLE III

ELIGIBILITY AND PARTICIPATION

3.1    Eligibility. Except as otherwise specified in this Article III, the persons who are eligible to receive Awards under the Plan are Employees who are executive, administrative, professional or technical personnel who, in the opinion of the Committee, have responsibilities affecting the management, development or financial success of the Company or one or more of its Affiliates. Awards other than Performance Stock Awards or Performance Unit Awards may also be granted to a person who is expected to become an Employee within three (3) months of the date of grant.

3.2    Participation. Subject to the terms and provisions of the Plan, the Committee may, from time to time, select the eligible persons to whom Awards shall be granted and shall determine the nature and amount of stock is subscribedeach Award.


ARTICLE IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO AWARDS
4.1    Authority to Grant Awards. Subject only to any applicable limitations set out in the Plan, may be terminated in accordance with Section XVIIthe number of the Plan.

Section VII – Subscription Price

The “Subscription Price” for each shareshares of Stock shallor other value to be the lesser of (a) 85% of the fair market value of such share on the last trading day before the first day of each Subscription Period (which for purposes ofcovered by any Award to be granted under the Plan shall be deemedas determined by the Committee in its sole discretion. Subject to Section 4.2 and Section 4.5, the following rules shall apply to grants of Awards under the Plan:


(a)    The aggregate number of shares of Stock with respect to which Awards may be granted under the date an optionPlan is granted), or (b) 85%2,350,660 which consists of the fair market valueshares of such share onStock that, as of the last trading day beforeEffective Date, remain available under the last dayPreexisting Plan (the "Authorized Shares").

(b)    Upon a grant of such Subscription Period (whichan Award, the number of shares of Stock available for purposes ofissuance under the Plan shall be deemed to be the datereduced by an option is exercised). The fair market value of a share shall be (i) the last reported sale price on the NASDAQ National Market System on the day in question, or if there is no reported sale on that day, on the most recent previous business day within a period of not more than five business days, or (ii) the last reported sale price on any stock exchange on which the Stock is listed on the day in question, or if there is no reported sale on that day, on the most recent previous business day within a period of not more than five business days, or, if neither (i) nor (ii) is applicable, (iii) the mean between the highest and lowest bid and ask prices, as reported by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. on the day in question or on the most recent previous business day.

Section VIII – Amount of Contribution and Method of Payment

Except as otherwise provided herein, the Subscription Price will be payable by the Participant by means of payroll deduction. The minimum deduction shall be one percent of the Participant’s Base Pay and the maximum

shall be six percent of Base Pay. The percentage of Base Pay to be deducted shall be specified by the Participant in his or her authorization for payroll deduction deliveredamount equal to the Company. “Base Pay” means the regular compensation which a Participant is entitlednumber of shares of Stock subject to receive on a pay day. Base Pay shall not include overtime, bonuses, or other items which are not considered to be regular earnings by the committee administeringsuch Award, and any shares of Stock underlying an Award that become available for future grant under the Plan pursuant to Section XVIII. Payroll deductions will commence with the first paycheck issued during the Subscription Period and will continue with each paycheck throughout the entire Subscription Period except for pay periods for which the Participant receives no compensation (i.e., uncompensated personal leave, leave of absence, etc.). A pay period which overlaps Subscription Periods will4.2 shall be credited in its entiretyadded back to the Subscription PeriodPlan in which it is paid. Payroll deductions shall be retained by the Participant’s employer until appliedan amount equal to the purchase of shares as described in Section IX or until returned to the employee upon withdrawal from the Plan or upon revocation of authorization for payroll deduction as described in Section XIII, and until any such event shall have occurred shall represent non-interest bearing indebtedness of the Participant’s employer to the Participant.

Section IX – Purchase of Shares

The Agent shall maintain a “Plan Account” in the name of each Participant. At the close of each pay period, the amount deducted and retained by the Participant’s employer from the Participant’s Base Pay will, for bookkeeping purposes, be credited by the Agent to the Participant’s Plan Account. As of the last day of each Subscription Period, unless a Participant has given written notice to the Company of his or her withdrawal or revocation of authorization for payroll deduction pursuant to Section XIII, the Participant’s right to purchase stock will be exercised automatically for him or her and the amount then in the Participant’s Plan Account will be divided by the Subscription Price for such Subscription Period and the Participant’s Plan Account will be credited by the Agent with the number of shares of stockStock subject to such an Award that become available for future grant under the Plan pursuant to Section 4.2.


(c)    The maximum number of shares of Stock with respect to which results.Performance Stock Awards may be granted to an Employee during a Fiscal Year is equal to 250,000. The maximum number of shares of Stock with respect to which Performance Unit Awards payable in shares of Stock may be granted to an Employee during a Fiscal Year is equal to 250,000. In the eventcase of Performance Stock Awards or Performance Unit Awards that are settled in cash based on the Fair Market Value of a share of Stock, the maximum aggregate amount of cash that may respectively be paid pursuant to each such type of Award to any Employee in any Fiscal Year shall be equal to the per share Fair Market Value as of the relevant payment or settlement date multiplied by 5.0. The maximum value of cash with respect to which Cash‑Based Awards may be granted to an Employee during a Fiscal Year, determined as of the dates of grants of the Cash‑Based Awards, is $5,000,000. The limitations set forth in this Section 4.1(c) shall be applied in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of Section 162(m) of the Code.

(d)    Each of the foregoing numerical limits stated in this Section 4.1 shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.5.

4.2    Accounting for Shares Under the Authorized Shares Limit.

(a)    To the extent that any outstanding Award terminates or expires, is forfeited or cancelled, for any reason, or is settled in cash in lieu of shares of Stock or in a manner such that all or some of the shares of Stock covered by the Award are not issued or are exchanged for Awards that do not involve shares of Stock, the shares of Stock allocable to such portion of the Award will immediately become available to be issued pursuant to an Award granted under the Plan.

(b)    Any shares of Stock subject to outstanding awards under the Preexisting Plan as of the Effective Date that on or after the Effective Date cease for any reason to be subject to such awards other than by reason of exercise or settlement of the awards to the extent they are exercised for or settled in shares of Stock will immediately become available to be issued pursuant to an Award granted under the Plan.

(c)    If shares of Stock are withheld from payment of an Award (or an award under the Preexisting Plan) to satisfy tax obligations with respect to the Award, such shares of Stock will immediately become available to be issued pursuant to an Award granted under the Plan.

(d)    If shares of Stock are tendered in payment of the option price of an option under the Preexisting Plan, such shares of Stock will not become available to be issued pursuant to an Award granted under the Plan and the full number of shares of Stock subject to the option will be counted against the Authorized Shares as one share for each share subject to the option.

(e)    If shares of Stock are repurchased by the Company on the open market with the proceeds of an option exercise under the Preexisting Plan, such shares of Stock will not become available to be issued pursuant to an Award granted under the Plan.

(f)    In the case of any Award granted through the assumption of, or in substitution for, an outstanding award granted by a company or business acquired by the Company or an Affiliate of the Company or with which the Company


or an Affiliate of the Company merges, consolidates or enters into a similar corporate transaction, shares of Stock issued or issuable in connection with such substitute Award shall not count against the aggregate number of shares of Stock with respect to which Awards may be granted under the Plan.

4.3    Non-Transferability. Except as specified in the applicable Award Agreement or in a domestic relations court order, no Award may be transferred, sold, assigned, pledged, hypothecated, encumbered or otherwise disposed of (whether by operation of law, for consideration or otherwise) or be subject to execution, attachment or similar process, other than by will or under the laws of descent and distribution, and shall be exercisable, during the Participant’s lifetime, only by him or her. Any attempted transfer, sale, assignment, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance or other disposition of an Award in violation of this Section 4.3 shall be null and void.

4.4    Requirements of Law. The Company shall not be required to sell or issue any shares of Stock under any Award if issuing those shares of Stock would constitute or result in a violation by the Participant or the Company of any provision of any law, statute or regulation of any governmental authority. Specifically, in connection with any applicable statute or regulation relating to the registration of securities, upon exercise of any option or pursuant to any other Award, the Company shall not be required to issue any shares of Stock unless the Committee has received evidence satisfactory to it to the effect that the Participant will not transfer the shares of Stock except in accordance with applicable law, including receipt of an opinion of counsel satisfactory to the Company to the effect that any proposed transfer complies with applicable law. The determination by the Committee on this matter shall be final, binding and conclusive.

4.5    Changes in the Company's Capital Structure.
(a)    If and to the extent necessary or appropriate to reflect any stock dividend, extraordinary dividend, stock split or share combination or any recapitalization, merger, consolidation, exchange of shares, spin-off, liquidation or dissolution of the Company or other similar transaction affecting the Stock (each, a "Corporate Event"), the Committee shall adjust the number of shares subscribedof Stock available for issuance under the Plan, any Subscription Period exceedsother limit applicable under the Plan with respect to the number of Awards that may be granted hereunder, and the number, class and exercise price (if applicable) or base price (if applicable) of any outstanding Award, and/or make such substitution, revision or other provisions or take such other actions with respect to any outstanding Award or the Participant or Participants thereof, in each case as it determines to be equitable. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing sentence, in the event of any such Corporate Event, the Committee shall have the power to make such changes as it deems appropriate in (i) the number and type of shares or other securities covered by outstanding Awards, (ii) the prices specified therein (if applicable), (iii) the securities, cash or other property to be received upon the exercise, settlement or conversion of such outstanding Awards or otherwise to be received in connection with such outstanding Awards and (iv) any applicable Performance Goals. After any adjustment made by the Committee pursuant to this Section 4.5(a), the number of shares available for saleof Stock subject to each outstanding Award shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number of whole or fractional shares (as determined by the Committee), and (if applicable) the exercise price thereof shall be rounded up to the nearest cent.

(b)    If while unexercised or unvested Awards remain outstanding under the Plan for such period,a Change in Control occurs, then, except as otherwise provided in an Award Agreement or another agreement between the available sharesParticipant and the Company, the Committee, acting in its sole and absolute discretion without the consent or approval of any Participant, shall be allocatedact to effect one or more of the following alternatives, which may vary among individual Participants and which may vary among Awards held by any individual Participant:

(i)    with respect to Awards subject to Performance Goals, except as otherwise determined by the Agent amongCommittee, all incomplete performance periods in respect of such Awards in effect on the Participantsdate the Change in proportion to their Plan Account balances. ParticipantsControl occurs shall not receive any interest on amounts held in Plan Accounts under this Plan.

In the event that the number of shares which would be credited to any Participant’s Plan Account in any Subscription Period exceeds the limit specified in Section III(b), the Participant’s account will be credited with the maximum number of shares permissible, and the remaining amounts will be refunded in cash.

As soon as practical following each purchase of stock under this Plan, the Agent shall report to each Participant the number of shares purchased on his or her behalf, and the total shares held on behalf of the Participant in his or her Plan Account. The Agent shall hold in its name or in the name of its nominee all shares purchased. No certificate will be issued to a Participant for shares in his or her plan account unless he or she so requests in writing or unless participation in the Plan is terminated. A Participant may request that a certificate for all or part of the full shares credited to his or her Plan Account be sent to him or her after the shares have been purchased. All such requests must be in writing to the Agent. No certificate for a fractional share will be issued; the fair value of fractional shares, as determined pursuant to Section VII,end on the date of withdrawal of all shares creditedsuch change and the Committee shall: (A) determine the extent to the Participant’s Plan Account shall be paid in cash to a Participant. There will be a $2.00 charge payable to the Company for each withdrawal of shares from the Plan.

Section X – Dividends and Other Distributions

Each Participant shall make an election to: (i) have any dividends received on shares held in the Participant’s account automatically reinvested in the Participant’s account; or (ii) receive such dividend amount in a quarterly cash distribution, payable to the Participant. Upon the Participant’s election, cash dividends and other cash distributions received by the Agent, or the Plan’s third party administrator (“TPA”), as applicable, on shares held in its custody hereunder will be credited pro rata to the accounts of the Participants in accordance with their elections and interests in the shareswhich Performance Goals with respect to each such performance period have been met based upon such audited or unaudited financial information then available as it deems relevant; and (B) cause to be paid to the Participant pro-rated Awards (based on each completed day of the performance period prior to the Change in Control) based upon the Committee’s determination of the degree of attainment of such Performance Goals or, if not determinable, assuming that the applicable target levels of performance have been attained (or on such other basis as the Committee determines to be appropriate); provided that in no event shall a Participant become entitled to a payout in excess of the target level payout with respect to a Performance Goal for which the dividendsCommittee has not determined the actual level of achievement;



(ii)    with respect to all or distributions are paidselected Participants, have some or made,all of their then outstanding Awards (whether vested or unvested) assumed or have a new award of a similar nature substituted for some or all of their then outstanding Awards under the Plan (whether vested or unvested) by an entity which is a party to the transaction resulting in such Change in Control and will be applied,which is then employing such Participant or which is affiliated or associated with such Participant in the same or a substantially similar manner as soon as practicalthe Company prior to the Change in Control, or a parent or subsidiary of such entity, provided that (A) such assumption or substitution is on a basis where the excess of the aggregate fair market value of the stock subject to the Award immediately after the receipt thereof byassumption or substitution over the Agent or TPAaggregate exercise price of such Award is equal to the purchaseexcess of the aggregate fair market value of all Stock subject to the Award immediately before such assumption or substitution over the aggregate exercise price of such Award, and (B) the assumed rights under such existing Award or the substituted rights under such new Award, as the case may be, will have the same or better terms and conditions as the rights under the existing Award assumed or substituted for, as the case may be;
(iii)    provide that the number and class or series of Stock covered by an Award (whether vested or unvested) theretofore granted shall be adjusted so that such Award when exercised shall thereafter cover the number and class or series of Stock or other securities or property (including cash) to which the Participant would have been entitled pursuant to the terms of the agreement or plan relating to such Change in Control if, immediately prior to such Change in Control, the market place at prevailing market pricesParticipant had been the Participant of record of the number of shares of Stock then covered by such Award; or
(iv)    make such adjustments to Awards then outstanding as the Company’s common stock which can

Committee deems appropriate to reflect such Change in Control (provided, however, that the Committee may determine in its sole and absolute discretion that no such adjustment is necessary to reflect such Change in Control).

In effecting one or more of the alternatives set out in paragraphs (ii), (iii) or (iv) immediately above, and except as otherwise may be purchased with such funds, after deductionprovided in an Award Agreement, the Committee, in its sole and absolute discretion and without the consent or approval of any bank service fees, brokerage charges and transfer taxes payableParticipant, may accelerate the time at which some or all Awards then outstanding may be exercised.
4.6    Election Under Section 83(b) of the Code. In any case in which a Participant is permitted to make an election under section 83(b) of the Code in connection with an Award, the purchaseParticipant shall notify the Company of such shares. All purchaseselection within ten (10) days of sharesfiling notice of the election with the Internal Revenue Service or other governmental authority, in addition to any filing and notification required pursuant to thisregulations issued under section will be made in the name83(b) of the AgentCode or TPAother applicable provision.

4.7    Forfeiture for Cause.

(a)    Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan or its nominee, shall be heldan Award Agreement to the contrary, if a determination is made as provided in Section IX and shall be credited pro rata (to4.7(b) (a "Forfeiture Determination"), the nearest one one-thousandth of a share) to the accounts of the Participants to which the dividend or other distribution was credited. Dividends paid in shares of the Company’s common stock which are received by the Agent or TPA with respect to shares held in its custody hereunder will be allocated to the Participants (to the nearest one one-thousandth of a share) in accordance with their elections and interests in the shares with respect to which the dividends are paid. Property, other than shares of the Company’s common stock or cash, received by the Agent or TPA as a distribution on shares held in its custody hereunder, shall be sold by the Agent or TPA for the accounts of the Participants, and the Agent or TPA shall treat the proceeds of such sale in the same manner as cash dividends received by the Agent or TPA on shares held in its custody hereunder. It is understood that the election to reinvest dividends under the Plan does not relieve the Participant of any income tax whichCompany may be payable on such dividends. The Agent or TPA shall report to each Participant the amount of dividends credited to his or her account, if any.

Section XI – Voting of Shares

Shares held for a Participant in his or her Plan Account will be voteddetermine, in accordance with the Participant’s express written direction. In the absence of any such direction, such shares will not be voted.

Section XII – Sale of Shares

Subject to the provisions of Section XIX, a Participant may at any time and without withdrawing from the Plan, by giving written notice to the Agent, direct the Agent to sellForfeiture Determination, that all or parta portion of the Participant’s rights to an Award (including, but not limited to, shares held on behalf of such Participant. Upon receipt of suchStock, cash proceeds and/or dividends) shall be forfeited. For this purpose, a notice on whichForfeiture Determination may be made if (i) the Participant’s signature is guaranteed by a national bank or trust company, the Agent shall, as soon as practical after receipt of such notice, sell such shares in the marketplace at the prevailing market price and transmit the net proceeds of such sale (less any bank service fees, brokerage charges and transfer taxes) to the Participant.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective for Subscription Periods beginning onParticipant, before or after January 1, 2010, and subject to the provisionstermination of Section XIX, an active employee Participant may at any time and without withdrawing from the Plan, by giving written notice to the Agent, direct the Agent to sell all or part of the shares held on behalf of such Participant subject to the requirement that such shares be held in the Participant’s Plan Account for a period of at least one year from the date of purchase or 18 months from the last trading day preceding the Subscription Period (the “Grant Date”).

Section XIII – Withdrawal from the Plan

A Participant may at any time, by giving written notice to the Company, withdraw from the Plan or, without withdrawing from the Plan, by giving written notice to the Company, revoke his or her authorization for payroll deduction foremployment with the Subscription PeriodCompany and all Affiliates, (A) committed fraud, embezzlement, theft, felony or an act of dishonesty in which the revocation is made and withdraw the amount credited to the Participant’s Plan Account which has not previously been used to purchase sharescourse of stock. At the time of withdrawal or revocation, the amount credited to the Participant’s Plan Account which has not previously been used to purchase shares of stock will be refunded in cash. If a Participant withdraws from the Plan prior to the end of a Subscription Period, or if a Participant revokes his or her authorization for payroll deduction during a Subscription Period, the Participant must payemployment by the Company or an administrative service charge equal toAffiliate, (B) knowingly caused or assisted in causing the greater of $35 or 10%publicly released financial statements of the amount of cash withdrawn. Upon a withdrawal fromCompany to be misstated or the Plan, a Participant, in hisCompany or her notice of withdrawal, may elect to receive either common stock or cash for the full number of shares of common stock in his or her account. If he or she elects cash, the Agent shall sell such shares and send the net proceeds (less any bank service fees, brokerage charges and transfer taxes) to the Participant, provided the Participant’s signature on the election has been guaranteed by a national bank or trust company. If no election is made in the notice of withdrawal, a certificate shall be issued for all full shares of common stock held in the Participant’s

account. In every case of withdrawal from the Plan, fractional shares allocated to the Participant’s Plan Account will be paid in cash at the market valuean Affiliate of the Company’s common stock on the date the withdrawal becomes effective, as determined pursuantCompany to Section VII.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective January 1, 2010, and subject to the provisions of Section XIX, an active employee Participant may at any time withdraw from the Plan by giving written notice to the Agent. Such notice shall indicate the Participant’s election to receive either common stock or cash for the full number of shares of common stockengage in the Participant’s Plan Account, subject to the requirement that such shares be held in the Participant’s Plan Account for a period of at least one year from the date of purchase or 18 months from the Grant Date.

Section XIV – Separation from Employment

Separation from employment for any reason including death, disability, termination or retirement shall be treated as an automatic withdrawal as set forth in Section XIII. A service fee is not charged for separation from employment withdrawal.

Section XV – Assignment

No Participant may assign or otherwise transfer his or her rights to purchase stock under this Plan to any other person and any attempted assignment or transfer shall be void. The right to purchase stock under this Plan may be exercisable for a Participant only by that Participant.

Section XVI – Adjustment of and Changes in the Stock

In the event that the shares of Stock shall be changed into or exchanged for a different number or kind of shares of stock or other securitiescriminal misconduct, (C) disclosed trade secrets of the Company or an Affiliate or (D) violated the terms of another corporation (whether by reason of merger, consolidation, recapitalization, split-up, combination of shares,any non-competition, non-disclosure or otherwise), or the number of shares of Stock shall be increased through a stock split or the payment of a stock dividend, then there shall be substituted for or addedsimilar agreement with respect to each share of Stock theretofore reserved for sale under the Plan, the number and kind of shares of stock or other securities into which each outstanding share of stock shall be so changed, or for which each such share shall be exchanged, or to which each such share shall be entitled, as the case may be.

Section XVII – Amendment or Discontinuance of the Plan

The Board of Directors of the Company shall have the right to amend, modify or terminate this Plan at any time without notice provided that no Participant’s existing rights are adversely affected thereby and provided further that without the approval of the holders of a majority of the voting power of the shares of stock of the Company, no such amendment shall materially increase the benefits accruing to Participants under the Plan, increase in any respect the number of shares which may be issued under the Plan, materially modify the requirements as to eligibility for participation in the Plan or change the designation of corporations whose employees are eligible to participate in the Plan, other than another parent or subsidiary of the Company.

Section XVIII – Administration

This Plan shall be administered by a committee to be appointed by the Company’s president consisting of at least two employees of the Company or any Affiliate to which the Participant is a party, and (ii) in the case of its parent or subsidiaries. The committeethe actions described in clause (A), (C) and (D), such action materially and adversely affected the Company.


(b)    A Forfeiture Determination for purposes of Section 4.7(a) shall be responsible formade (i) before the administrationoccurrence of all matters undera Change in Control, by a majority vote of the Plan which have not been delegatedCommittee and (ii) on or after the occurrence of a Change in Control, by the final, non-appealable order of a court of competent jurisdiction. The findings and decision of the Committee with respect to a Forfeiture Determination made before the occurrence of a Change in Control, including those regarding the acts of the Participant and the damage done to the Agent. The committee’s responsibilitiesCompany, will be final for all purposes absent a showing by clear and convincing evidence of manifest error by, or a lack of good faith on the part of, the Committee.



4.8    Forfeiture Events. Without limiting the applicability of Section 4.7 or Section 4.9, the Committee may specify in an Award Agreement that the Participant's rights, payments, and benefits with respect to an Award shall be subject to reduction, cancellation, forfeiture, or recoupment upon the occurrence of certain specified events, in addition to any otherwise applicable vesting or performance conditions of an Award. Such events may include, but shall not be limited to, providing prompt noticeTermination of Employment for cause, Termination of Employment for any other reason, violation of material policies of the Company and its Affiliates, breach of noncompetition, confidentiality, or other restrictive covenants that may apply to the AgentParticipant, or other conduct by the Participant that is detrimental to the business or reputation of the enrollmentCompany and its Affiliates.

4.9    Recoupment in Restatement Situations. Without limiting the applicability of Eligible Employees,Section 4.7 or Section 4.8, if the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the amountsCompany with any financial reporting requirement under applicable securities laws, the current or former Participant who was a current or former executive officer of the Company or an Affiliate shall forfeit and must repay to the Company any compensation awarded under the Plan to the extent specified in any clawback or similar policy that may be credited to Participants’ Plan Accounts, and of Participants’ written notice of withdrawal or revocation of authorization for payroll deduction. The committee mayimplemented by the Company from time to time, adopt rulesincluding such policies that may be implemented after the date an Award is granted, pursuant to the listing standards of any national securities exchange or association on which the Company's securities are listed or as is otherwise required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and regulations for carrying outConsumer Protection Act or other applicable law, or other agreement or arrangement with a Participant.

4.10    Award Agreements. Each Award shall be embodied in a written or electronic Award Agreement that shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan. InterpretationThe Award Agreement shall be signed by (including by electronic signature) or constructiondelivered on behalf of any provisionan authorized executive officer of the Plan

Company, other than the Participant, on behalf of the Company, and may be signed (including by electronic signature) or acknowledged by the committee shall be final and conclusive on all persons absent contrary action by the Board of Directors. Any interpretation or construction of any provision of the Plan by the Board of Directors or a committee thereof shall be final and conclusive.

The Committee may include in any process or procedure for administering the Plan, the use of alternative media, including, but not limited to, telephonic, facsimile, computer or other such electronic means as available. Use of such alternative media shall be deemed to satisfy any Plan provision requiring a “written” document or an instrument to be signed “in writing”Participant to the extent permissible underrequired by the CodeCommittee. The Award Agreement shall set forth the terms and conditions applicable regulations.

Section XIX – Securities Law Restrictions

Notwithstanding any provision of this Plan to the contrary:

(a) No payroll deductionsAward following the Participant's Termination of Employment. Such provisions shall take placebe determined in the sole discretion of the Committee, need not be uniform among all Awards granted pursuant to the Plan, and no sharesmay reflect distinctions based on the reasons for termination or severance. The Award Agreement may specify the effect of stocka Change in Control on the Award. The Award Agreement may contain any other provisions that the Committee in its discretion shall deem advisable which are not inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Plan. An Award Agreement may be purchased under this Plan until a registration statement registering the stock covered by this Plan under the Securities Act of 1933,altered, amended, modified, or suspended as amended (the “Act”), has become effective. Prior to the effectiveness of such registration statement, stock under this Planprovided in Section 11.2. An Award Agreement may be offered to Eligible Employees only pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the Act.

(b) No payroll deduction shall take placeterminated as provided in Section 11.2 and no shares of stock may be purchased under this Plan with respect to Eligible Employees residentelsewhere in any state unless the shares under this Plan are exempt from registration under the securities laws of such state, or the purchase is an exempt transaction under the securities laws of such state or are registered by description, qualification, coordination or otherwise under the securities laws of such state.

(c) The following restrictions or provisions shall apply to Participants who are officers (as defined in §240.16a-1 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”)) or directors of the Company:

(i) Any certificates evidencing ownership of stock purchased for such Participants under the Plan may be legended to disclose the restrictions set forth in this section.

including Sections 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9.


Section XX – Employee’s4.11    Rights as Shareholder.

Nothing in this PlanA Participant shall be construed to be a contract of employment for any definite or specific duration or to prevent the Company, its parent or any subsidiary from terminating any employee’s employment. No employee shallnot have any rights as a shareholder with respect to Stock covered by a Deferred Stock Unit, a Performance Unit, or an Other Stock-Based Award payable in Stock until the rightdate, if any, such Stock is issued by the Company; and, except as otherwise provided in Section 4.5, no adjustment for dividends, or otherwise, shall be made if the record date therefor is prior to purchasethe date of issuance of such Stock.


4.12    Issuance of Shares of Stock. Shares of Stock, when issued, may be represented by a certificate or by book or electronic entry.

4.13    Restrictions on Stock Received. The Committee may impose such conditions and restrictions on any shares has been exercisedof Stock issued pursuant to an Award as it may deem advisable or desirable. These restrictions may include, but shall not be limited to, a requirement that the Participant hold the shares of Stock for a specified period of time.

4.14    Compliance With Section 409A. Awards shall be designed, granted and administered in such a manner that they are either exempt from the application of, or comply with, the requirements of Section 409A. The Plan and each Award Agreement under the Plan that is intended to comply with the requirements of Section 409A shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with such intent. If the Committee determines that an Award, Award Agreement, payment, distribution, deferral election, transaction, or any other action or arrangement contemplated by the provisions of the last trading dayPlan would, if undertaken, cause a Participant to become subject to additional taxes under Section 409A, then unless the Committee specifically provides otherwise, such Award, Award Agreement, payment, distribution, deferral election, transaction or other action or arrangement shall not be given effect to the extent it causes such result and the related provisions of a Subscription Period.

Section XXI – Agent Powers and Duties

(a)Acceptance. The Agent accepts the agency created under this Plan and agreesAward Agreement will be deemed modified, or, if necessary, suspended in order to performcomply with the obligations imposed hereunder.requirements of Section 409A to the extent determined appropriate by the Committee, in each case without the consent of or notice to the Participant. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan or an Award Agreement, if an Award is not exempt from the requirements of Section 409A, the Participant is a "specified employee" (within the meaning of Section 409A) and a payment under the Award is due as a result of such individual’s "separation from service" (as that term is defined for purposes of Section 409A using the default rules) then no payment shall be made under the Award due to such separation from service before the date that is six (6) months after the date on which the Participant incurs such separation from service, except as otherwise allowed by Section 409A.


(b)Receipt4.15    Source of Shares Deliverable Under Awards. Any shares of Stock delivered pursuant to an Award may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and Dividendsunissued shares of Stock or of treasury shares of Stock.



4.16    Limitations on Vesting of Awards.

(a)    Unless the applicable Award Agreement specifies otherwise, an Award shall not continue to vest after the Termination of Employment of the Participant for any reason.

(b)    Any Award granted under the Plan must include a minimum vesting period of at least one (1) year, provided, however, that (i) an Award Agreement may provide that the Award will vest before the completion of such one (1) year period upon the death or Disability of the original grantee of the Award or a Change in Control and (ii) Awards covering, in the aggregate, up to five percent (5%) of the Authorized Shares may be issued without any minimum vesting period.

ARTICLE V

RESTRICTED STOCKAWARDS
5.1    Restricted Stock Awards. Subject to the terms and provisions of the Plan, the Committee, at any time, and from time to time, may make Awards of Restricted Stock under the Plan to eligible persons in such number and upon such terms as the Committee shall determine. The Agentamount of and the vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions applicable to any Restricted Stock Award shall be accountabledetermined by the Committee in its sole discretion. If the Committee imposes vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions on a Participant's rights with respect to Restricted Stock, the Committee may issue such instructions to the ParticipantsCompany's share transfer agent in connection therewith as it deems appropriate. The Committee may also cause the certificate for shares of Stock issued pursuant to a Restricted Stock Award to be imprinted with any legend which counsel for the Company heldconsiders advisable with respect to the restrictions or, should the shares of Stock be represented by book or electronic entry rather than a certificate, the Company may take such steps to restrict transfer of the shares of Stock as counsel for the Company considers necessary or advisable to comply with applicable law.

5.2    Restricted Stock Award Agreement. Each Restricted Stock Award shall be evidenced by an Award Agreement that contains any vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions and other provisions not inconsistent with the Plan as the Committee may specify.

5.2    Participant’s Rights as Shareholder. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan, each recipient of a Restricted Stock Award shall have all the rights of a shareholder with respect to the shares of Restricted Stock included in the Participant’s Plan Accounts andRestricted Stock Award during the Period of Restriction established for dividends receivedthe Restricted Stock Award. Dividends paid with respect thereto.

(c)Recordsto Restricted Stock in cash or property other than shares of Stock or rights to acquire shares of Stock shall be subject to the same vesting, transferability and Statements. The recordsforfeiture restrictions applicable to such Restricted Stock. Any dividends described in the preceding sentence shall be paid to the recipient of the Agent pertainingRestricted Stock Award at the time that the vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions applicable to such Restricted Stock lapse; provided, that, to the extent that such vesting, transferability or forfeiture restrictions do not lapse, such dividends shall be forfeited by the recipient of the Restricted Stock Award. Dividends paid in shares of Stock or rights to acquire shares of Stock shall be added to and become a part of the Restricted Stock. During the Period of Restriction, certificates representing the Restricted Stock shall be registered in the Participant's name and bear a restrictive legend to the effect that ownership of such Restricted Stock, and the enjoyment of all rights appurtenant thereto, are subject to the restrictions, terms, and conditions provided in the Plan and the applicable Award Agreement. Such certificates shall be deposited by the recipient with the Secretary of the Company or such other officer or agent of the Company as may be designated by the Committee, together with all stock powers or other instruments of assignment, each endorsed in blank, which will permit transfer to the Company of all or any portion of the Restricted Stock which shall be forfeited in accordance with the Plan and the applicable Award Agreement.

ARTICLE VI

DEFERRED STOCK UNIT AWARDS

6.1    Authority to Grant Deferred Stock Unit Awards. Subject to the terms and provisions of the Plan, the Committee, at any time, and from time to time, may grant Deferred Stock Unit Awards under the Plan to eligible persons in such amounts and upon such terms as the Committee shall determine. The amount of and the vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions applicable to any Deferred Stock Unit Award shall be determined by the Committee in its sole discretion. The Committee shall maintain a bookkeeping ledger account which reflects the number of Deferred Stock Units credited under the Plan for the benefit of a Participant.

6.2    Deferred Stock Unit Award. A Deferred Stock Unit Award shall be similar in nature to a Restricted Stock Award except that no shares of Stock (or equivalent value in cash) are actually transferred to the Participant until a later date


specified in the applicable Award Agreement. Each Deferred Stock Unit shall have a value equal to the Fair Market Value of a share of Stock.

6.3    Deferred Stock Unit Award Agreement. Each Deferred Stock Unit Award shall be evidenced by an Award Agreement that contains any Substantial Risk of Forfeiture, vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions, form and time of payment provisions and other provisions not inconsistent with the Plan as the Committee may specify.

6.4    Dividend Equivalents. An Award Agreement for a Deferred Stock Unit Award may specify that the Participant shall be entitled to the payment of Dividend Equivalents under the Award. Any Dividend Equivalents paid under an Award shall be subject to restrictions and a Substantial Risk of Forfeiture to the same extent as the Award with respect to which such Dividend Equivalents are to be paid.
6.5    Form of Payment Under Deferred Stock Unit Award. Payment under a Deferred Stock Unit Award shall be made in cash, shares of Stock or any combination thereof, as specified in the applicable Award Agreement.

6.6    Time of Payment Under Deferred Stock Unit Award. A Participant's payment under a Deferred Stock Unit Award shall be made at such time as is specified in the applicable Award Agreement. The Award Agreement shall specify that the payment will be made (a) by a date that is no later than the date that is two and one-half (2 1/2) months after the end of the calendar year in which the Deferred Stock Unit Award payment is no longer subject to a Substantial Risk of Forfeiture or (b) at a time that is permissible under Section 409A.

6.7    Participant’s Rights as Shareholder. Each recipient of a Deferred Stock Unit Award shall have no rights of a shareholder with respect to the Participant's Deferred Stock Units. A Participant shall have no voting rights with respect to any Deferred Stock Unit Awards.

ARTICLE VII

CASH‑BASED AWARDS, PERFORMANCE STOCK AWARDS
AND PERFORMANCE UNIT AWRDS

7.1    Authority to Grant Cash‑Based Awards, Performance Stock Awards and Performance Unit Awards. Subject to the terms and provisions of the Plan, the Committee, at any time, and from time to time, may grant Cash‑Based Awards (including PAUs), Performance Stock Awards and Performance Unit Awards under the Plan to eligible persons in such amounts and upon such terms as the Committee shall determine. A Cash‑Based Award, including a PAU, is an Award denominated in cash subject to the attainment of applicable Performance Goals. A Performance Stock Award is similar to a Restricted Stock Award but is subject to attainment of the applicable Performance Goals. A Performance Unit Award is similar to a Deferred Stock Unit Award but is subject to attainment of the applicable Performance Goals. The amount of and the vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions applicable to any Cash‑Based Award, Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award shall be based upon the attainment of such Performance Goals as the Committee may determine. If the Committee imposes vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions on a Participant’s rights with respect to a Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award, the Committee may issue such instructions to the Company's share transfer agent in connection therewith as it deems appropriate. The Committee may also cause the certificate for shares of Stock issued pursuant to a Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award to be imprinted with any legend which counsel for the Company considers advisable with respect to the restrictions or, should the shares of Stock be represented by book or electronic entry rather than a certificate, the Company may take such steps to restrict transfer of the shares of Stock as counsel for the Company considers necessary or advisable.

7.2    Performance Goals and Performance Criteria.

(a)    A Performance Goal must be objective such that a third party having knowledge of the relevant facts could determine whether the goal is met. Unless and until the Committee proposes for shareholder vote and the shareholders approve a change in the general Performance Goals set forth in this Section 7.2, the Performance Goals upon which the payment or vesting of an Award to a Covered Employee that is intended to qualify as Performance-Based Compensation shall be limited to one or more of the following Performance Goals, which may be based on one or more business criteria that apply to the Employee, or one or more business units, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, regions, segments, products, or functions of the Company or its Affiliates, or the Company as a whole: earnings, return on capital, revenue, premiums, net income, earnings per share, combined ratio, loss ratio, expense ratio, assets, equity, cash flows, stock price, total shareholders' return, policies in force, or any other performance goal approved by the shareholders of the Company in accordance with Section 162(m) of the Code. A Performance Goal may also be based on performance relative to a peer group of companies. Unless otherwise stated, a Performance Goal need not be based upon an increase or positive


result under a particular business criterion and could include, for example, maintaining the status quo or limiting economic losses (measured, in each case, by reference to specific business criteria). Performance Goals that are financial metrics may be determined in accordance with United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") or financial metrics that are based on, or able to be derived from GAAP, and may be adjusted when established (or to the extent permitted under Section 162(m) of the Code, at any time thereafter) to include or exclude any items otherwise includable or excludable under GAAP.

(b)    Performance Goals may be measured (a) on a per share, per capita, per unit, per employee, per customer or other objective basis established by the Committee, (b) on a pre-tax or after-tax basis, or (c) on an absolute basis or in relative terms (including, but not limited to, the passage of time and/or against other companies, financial metrics and/or an index). With respect to Participants who are not Covered Employees and who, in the Committee's judgment, are not likely to be Covered Employees at any time during the applicable Performance Period or during any period in which any Cash‑Based Award (including a PAU), Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award may be paid following a Performance Period, the performance goals established for the Performance Period may consist of any objective or subjective corporate-wide or subsidiary, division, operating unit or individual measures, whether or not listed herein and such performance goals shall be subject to such other special rules and conditions as the Committee may establish at any time.

(c)    At the time the Committee establishes the terms and conditions of the applicable Performance Goal for an Award to a Covered Employee intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code, the Committee may, in the Committee's discretion, provide that amounts relating to or arising from one or more of the following, as objectively defined by the Committee, may be included or excluded on a non-discretionary basis to the extent permitted by Section 162(m) of the Code:

(i)    unusual, infrequently occurring or non-recurring events affecting the Company
and/or its Affiliates;

(ii)    changes in applicable tax laws;

(iii)changes in accounting principles;
(iv)changes related to restructured or discontinued operations;

(v)restatement of prior financial results; and

(vi)any other unusual, infrequently occurring or non-recurring gain or loss including those described in the Financial Accounting Standards Board's authoritative guidance, footnotes to the Company’s financial statements, in management's discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations appearing in the Company's reports on Form 10-K, 10-Q or 8-K for the applicable year and/or appearing in a press release reporting the Company's earnings for any fiscal period.

Each of the adjustments described above may relate to the Company as a whole or any part of the Company's business or operations.
(d)    Prior to the payment of any compensation based on the achievement of Performance Goals, the Committee must certify in writing that applicable Performance Goals and any of the material terms thereof were, in fact, satisfied. Subject to the foregoing provisions, the terms, conditions and limitations applicable to any Cash‑Based Award (including a PAU), Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award made pursuant to the Plan shall be opendetermined by the Committee. In the case of any Award to a Covered Employee that is intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code, the Plan, such Award and the Award Agreement for such Award will be construed and administered to the inspectionmaximum extent permitted by law in a manner consistent with satisfying the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code.



7.3    Time of Establishment of Performance Goals. With respect to a Covered Employee, a Performance Goal for a particular Cash‑Based Award (including a PAU), Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award must be established by the Committee prior to the earlier to occur of (a) 90 days after the commencement of the period of service to which the Performance Goal relates or (b) the lapse of 25 percent of the period of service, and in any event while the outcome is substantially uncertain.

7.4    Written Agreement. Each Cash‑Based Award (including a PAU), Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award shall be evidenced by an Award Agreement that contains any vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions and such other provisions not inconsistent with the Plan as the Committee may specify.

7.5    Form and Time of Payment Under Cash‑Based Award. Payment under a Cash‑Based Award (including a PAU), shall be made in cash. A Participant's payment under a Cash‑Based Award shall be made at such time as is specified in the applicable Award Agreement. The Award Agreement shall specify that the payment will be made (a) by a date that is no later than the date that is two and one-half (2 1/2) months after the end of the calendar year in which the Cash‑Based Award payment is no longer subject to a Substantial Risk of Forfeiture or (b) at a time that is permissible under Section 409A.

7.6    Form and Time of Payment Under Performance Unit Award. Payment under a Performance Unit Award shall be made in cash, shares of Stock or any combination thereof, as specified in the applicable Award Agreement. A Participant's payment under a Performance Unit Award shall be made at such time as is specified in the applicable Award Agreement. The Award Agreement shall specify that the payment will be made (a) by a date that is no later than the date that is two and one-half (2 1/2) months after the end of the calendar year in which the Performance Unit Award payment is no longer subject to a Substantial Risk of Forfeiture or (b) at a time that is permissible under Section 409A.

7.7    Participant's Rights as Shareholder With Respect to a Performance Stock Award.Subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and the applicable Award Agreement, a Participant who has been granted a Performance Stock Award shall have all the rights of a shareholder with respect to the shares of Stock issued to the Participant pursuant to the Award during any period in which such issued shares of Stock are subject to forfeiture and restrictions on transfer, including, the right to vote such shares of Stock; provided, however, that the Participant shall not receive payment of dividends until and only to the extent that the Performance Goals applicable to such Award are satisfied.

7.8    Increases Prohibited. Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan or an Award Agreement to the contrary, none of the Committee, the Board, the Company or any Affiliate may increase the amount of compensation payable under a Cash‑Based Award (including a PAU), Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award with respect to Participants of such Awards who are Covered Employees or who, in the Committee's judgment, are likely to be Covered Employees. The Committee may adjust downward, but not upward, the amount payable pursuant to such Awards, and the Committee may not waive the achievement of the applicable Performance Goals, except in the case of a change in ownership or control of the Company (as defined for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code) or the death or Disability of the Participant. If the time at all reasonable timeswhich a Cash‑Based Award (including a PAU), Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award will vest or be paid is accelerated for any reason, the number of shares of Stock subject to, or the amount payable under, the Cash‑Based Award, Performance Stock Award or Performance Unit Award shall be reduced to the extent required under Department of Treasury Regulation § 1.162-27(e)(2)(iii) to reasonably reflect the time value of money.

7.9    Shareholder Approval. No payments of Stock or cash will be made to a Covered Employee pursuant to this Article VII unless the shareholder approval requirements of Department of Treasury Regulation § 1.162-27(e)(4) are satisfied.

7.10    Dividend Equivalents. An Award Agreement for a Performance Unit Award may specify that the Participant shall be entitled to the payment of Dividend Equivalents under the Award; provided, however, that the Participant shall not receive payment of such Dividend Equivalents until and may be auditedonly to the extent that the Performance Goals applicable to such Award are satisfied.

ARTICLE VIII

OTHER STOCK-BASED AWARDS

8.1    Authority to Grant Other Stock-Based Awards. Subject to the terms and provisions of the Plan, the Committee, at any time, and from time to time, may grant other types of equity-based or equity-related Awards not otherwise described by any personthe terms and provisions of the Plan (including the grant or offer for sale of unrestricted shares of Stock) under the Plan to eligible persons in such number and upon such terms as the CompanyCommittee shall determine. Such Awards may involve the transfer of actual shares of Stock to Participants, or payment in cash or otherwise of amounts based on the value of shares of Stock.



8.2    Value of Other Stock-Based Award. Each Other Stock-Based Award shall be expressed in terms of shares of Stock or units based on shares of Stock, as determined by the Committee.

8.3    Written Agreement. Each Other Stock-Based Award shall be evidenced by an Award Agreement that contains any vesting, transferability and forfeiture restrictions and other provisions not inconsistent with the Plan as the Committee may specify.

8.4    Payment of Other Stock-Based Award. Payment, if any, with respect to an Other Stock-Based Award shall be made in accordance with the terms of the Award, in cash, shares of Stock or any combination thereof, as the Committee determines.

8.5    Time of Payment of Other Stock-Based Award. A Participant's payment under an Other Stock-Based Award shall be made at such time as is specified in the applicable Award Agreement. The Award Agreement shall specify that the payment will be made (a) by a date that is no later than the date that is two and one-half (2 1/2) months after the end of the calendar year in writing. The Agent shall furnishwhich the Other Stock-Based Award payment is no longer subject to a Substantial Risk of Forfeiture or (b) at a time that is permissible under Section 409A.
ARTICLE IX

SUBSTITUTION AWARDS

Awards may be granted under the Plan from time to time in substitution for stock options and other awards held by employees of other entities who are about to become Employees, or whose employer is about to become an Affiliate as the result of a merger or consolidation of the Company or an Affiliate with whatever informationanother corporation, or the acquisition by the Company of substantially all the assets of another corporation, or the acquisition by the Company of at least fifty percent (50%) of the issued and outstanding stock of another corporation as the result of which such other corporation will become a subsidiary of the Company. The terms and conditions of the substitute Awards so granted may vary from the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan to such extent as the Board at the time of grant may deem appropriate to conform, in whole or in part, to the provisions of the awards in substitution for which they are granted.
ARTICLE X
ADMINISTRATION
10.1    Awards. The Plan shall be administered by the Committee or, in the absence of the Committee, the Plan shall be administered by the Board. The members of the Committee (that is not itself the Board) shall serve at the discretion of the Board. The Committee shall have full and exclusive power and authority to administer the Plan and to take all actions that the Plan expressly contemplates or are necessary or appropriate in connection with the administration of the Plan with respect to Awards granted under the Plan.

10.2    Authority of the Committee.

(a)    The Committee shall have full and exclusive power to interpret and apply the terms and provisions of the Plan and Awards made under the Plan, and to adopt such rules, regulations and guidelines for implementing the Plan as the Committee may deem necessary or proper, all of which powers shall be exercised in the best interests of the Company and in keeping with the objectives of the Plan. A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business relating to the Plan Accountsor Awards made under the Company considers necessary.

(d)Fees and Expenses. The Agent shall receive from the Company reasonable annual compensation as may be agreed upon from time to time between the CompanyPlan, and the Agent.

(e)Resignation. The Agent may resignvote of a majority of those members present at any timemeeting shall decide any question brought before that meeting. Any decision or determination reduced to writing and signed by a majority of the members shall be as Agenteffective as if it had been made by a majority vote at a meeting properly called and held. All questions of interpretation and application of the Plan, by giving sixty (60) days written notice in advanceor as to Awards granted under the Plan, shall be subject to the Company.

(f)Removal. The Company, by giving sixty (60) days written notice in advance to the Agent, may remove the Agent. In the eventdetermination, which shall be final and binding, of a majority of the resignation or removalwhole Committee. No member of the Agent, the CompanyCommittee shall appoint a successor Agent if it intends to continue the Plan.

(g)Interim Duties and Successor Agent. Each successor Agent shall succeed to the title of the Agent vested in its predecessor by accepting in writing its appointment as successor Agent and filing the acceptance with the former Agent and the Company without the signing or filing of any further statement. The resigning or removed Agent, upon receipt of acceptance in writing of the agency by the successor Agent, shall execute all documents and do all acts necessary to vest the title in any successor Agent. Each successor Agent shall have and enjoy all of the powers conferred under this Plan upon its predecessor. No successor Agent shall be personably liable for any act or failure to actomission of any predecessor Agent. Withother member of the approvalCommittee or for any act or omission on his or her own part, including the exercise of any power or discretion given to him or her under the Plan, except those resulting from his or her own willful misconduct. In carrying out its authority under the Plan, the Committee shall have full and final authority and discretion, including the following rights, powers and authorities to: (i) determine the persons to whom and the time or times at which Awards will be made; (ii) determine the number and exercise price of shares of Stock covered in each Award subject to the terms and provisions of the Plan; (iii) determine the terms, provisions and conditions of each Award, which need not be identical; (iv) prescribe, amend and rescind rules and regulations relating to administration of the Plan; and (v) make all other determinations and take all other actions deemed necessary, appropriate or advisable for the proper administration of the Plan.





(b)    The Committee may make an Award to an individual who the Company expects to become an Employee of the Company or any of its Affiliates within three (3) months after the date of grant of the Award, with the Award being subject to and conditioned on the individual actually becoming an Employee within that time period and subject to other terms and conditions as the Committee may establish.

(c)    The Committee may correct any defect or supply any omission or reconcile any inconsistency in the Plan or in any Award to a successor Agent,Participant in the manner and to the extent the Committee deems necessary or desirable to further the Plan’s objectives. Further, the Committee shall make all other determinations that may be necessary or advisable for the administration of the Plan.

(d)    The Committee may employ attorneys, consultants, accountants, agents, and other persons, any of whom may be an Employee, and the Committee, the Company, and its officers shall be entitled to rely upon the advice, opinions, or valuations of any such person. As permitted by law and the terms and provisions of the Plan, the Committee may delegate to one or more of its members or to one or more officers of the Company or its Affiliates or other Employees or to one or more agents or advisors such administrative duties as it may deem advisable, and the Committee or any person to whom it has delegated duties as aforesaid may employ one or more persons to render advice with respect to any responsibility the Committee or such person may have under the Plan.

10.3    Decisions Binding. All determinations and decisions made by the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, pursuant to the provisions of the Plan and all related orders and resolutions of the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall be final, conclusive and binding on all persons, including the Company, its Affiliates, its shareholders, Participants and the estates and beneficiaries of Participants.

10.4    No Liability. Under no circumstances shall the Company, its Affiliates, the Board or the Committee incur liability for any indirect, incidental, consequential or special damages (including lost profits) of any form incurred by any person, whether or not foreseeable and regardless of the form of the act in which such a claim may be brought, with respect to the Plan or the Company's, its Affiliates', the Committee's or the Board’s roles in connection with the Plan.


ARTICLE XI

AMENDMENT OR TERMINATION
OF PLAN OR AWARD AGREEMENT

11.1    Amendment, Modification, Suspension, and Termination of the Plan. Subject to Section 11.3, the Board may, acceptat any time and from time to time, alter, amend, modify, suspend, or terminate the account renderedPlan, provided, however, no amendment of the Plan shall be made without shareholder approval if shareholder approval is required by applicable law or stock exchange rules.

11.2    Amendment, Modification, Suspension, and Termination of Award Agreement. Subject to Section 11.3, the Committee may, in its discretion and at any time and from time to time, alter, amend, modify, suspend, or terminate any Award Agreement in whole or in part in any manner that it deems appropriate and that is consistent with the terms of the Plan or necessary to implement the requirements of the Plan.

11.3    Awards Previously Granted. Except as expressly provided otherwise under the Plan (including Sections 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9), no alteration, amendment, modification, suspension or termination of the Plan or an Award Agreement shall adversely affect in any material manner any Award previously granted under the Plan, without the written consent of the Participant holding such Award.

ARTICLE XII

MISCELLANEOUS

12.1    Unfunded Plan/No Establishment of a Trust Fund. Participants shall have no right, title, or interest whatsoever in or to any investments that the Company or any of its Affiliates may make to aid in meeting obligations under the Plan. Nothing contained in the Plan, and no action taken pursuant to its provisions, shall create or be construed to create a trust of any kind, or a fiduciary relationship between the Company and any Participant, beneficiary, legal representative, or any other person. To the


extent that any person acquires a right to receive payments from the Company under the Plan, such right shall be no greater than the right of an unsecured general creditor of the Company. All payments to be made hereunder shall be paid from the general funds of the Company and no special or separate fund shall be established and no segregation of assets shall be made to assure payment of such amounts, except as expressly set forth in the Plan. No property deliveredshall be set aside nor shall a trust fund of any kind be established to it by a predecessor Agent without incurringsecure the rights of any liabilityParticipant under the Plan. The Plan is not intended to be subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.

12.2    No Employment Obligation. The granting of any Award shall not constitute an employment contract, express or responsibility for so doing.

(h)Limitationimplied, and shall not impose upon the Company or any Affiliate any obligation to employ or continue to employ any Participant. The right of Liabilitythe Company or any Affiliate to Participants. The Agentterminate the employment of any person shall not be liable hereunderdiminished or affected by reason of the fact that an Award has been granted to him or her, and nothing in the Plan or an Award Agreement shall interfere with or limit in any way the right of the Company or its Affiliates to terminate any Participant’s employment at any time or for any actreason not prohibited by law.


12.3    Tax Withholding. The Company or failureany Affiliate is authorized to act,withhold from any Award granted, any payment relating to an Award under the Plan, including without limitation,from a distribution of Stock, or any claimpayroll or other payment to a Participant, amounts of liability (i) arising out ofwithholding and other taxes due or potentially payable in connection with any transaction or event involving an Award, or to require a failureParticipant to terminate a Participant’s Plan Account uponremit to the Company an amount in cash or other property (including Stock) to satisfy such Participant’s death or adjudication of incompetency prior to receipt of notice in writing of such death or incompetency, and (ii)withholding before taking any action with respect to an Award, and to take such other action as the prices at which shares are purchasedCommittee may deem advisable to enable the Company and Participants to satisfy obligations for the payment of withholding taxes and other tax obligations relating to any Award. This authority shall include authority to withhold or sold forreceive Stock or other property and to make cash payments in respect thereof in satisfaction of a Participant’s withholding obligations, up to the statutory rate allowed to avoid any adverse accounting consequences for such withholding. The Company can delay the delivery to a Participant under any Award to the extent necessary to allow the Company to determine the amount of withholding to be collected and to collect and process such withholding.

12.4    Gender and Number. If the context requires, words of one gender when used in the Plan Accountshall include the other and words used in the singular or plural shall include the other.

12.5    Severability. In the event any provision of the Plan shall be held illegal or invalid for any reason, the illegality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining parts of the Plan, and the Plan shall be construed and enforced as if the illegal or invalid provision had not been included.

12.6    Headings. Headings of Articles and Sections are included for convenience of reference only and do not constitute part of the Plan and shall not be used in construing the terms and provisions of the Plan.

12.7    Other Compensation Plans. The adoption of the Plan shall not affect any other option, incentive or other compensation or benefit plans in effect for the Company or any Affiliate, nor shall the Plan preclude the Company from establishing any other forms of incentive compensation arrangements for Employees.

12.8    Other Awards. The grant of an Award shall not confer upon the Participant the right to receive any future or other Awards under the Plan, whether or not Awards may be granted to similarly situated Participants, or the timingright to receive future Awards upon the same terms or conditions as previously granted.

12.9    Law Limitations/Governmental Approvals.The granting of Awards and the issuance of shares of Stock under the Plan shall be subject to all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, and to such purchasesapprovals by any governmental agencies or sales.national securities exchanges as may be required.


Section XXII – Applicable Law12.10

    Delivery of Title. The Company shall have no obligation to issue or deliver evidence of title for shares of Stock issued under the Plan prior to: (a) obtaining any approvals from governmental agencies that the Company determines are necessary or advisable; and (b) completion of any registration or other qualification of the Stock under any applicable law or ruling of any governmental body that the Company determines to be necessary or advisable.


12.11    Inability to Obtain Authority. The inability of the Company to obtain authority from any regulatory body having jurisdiction, which authority is deemed by the Company's counsel to be necessary to the lawful issuance and sale of any shares of Stock hereunder, shall relieve the Company of any liability in respect of the failure to issue or sell such shares of Stock as to which such requisite authority shall not have been obtained.



12.12    Investment Representations. The Committee may require any person receiving Stock pursuant to an Award under the Plan to represent and warrant in writing that the person is acquiring the shares of Stock for investment and without any present intention to sell or distribute such Stock.

12.13    No Fractional Shares. No fractional shares of Stock shall be issued or delivered pursuant to the Plan or any Award. The Committee shall determine whether cash, additional Awards, or other property shall be issued or paid in lieu of fractional shares of Stock or whether such fractional shares or any rights thereto shall be forfeited or otherwise eliminated.

12.13    Interpretation. The term "including" means "including without limitation". The term "or" means "and/or" unless clearly indicated otherwise. The term "vest" includes the lapse of restrictions on Awards, including forfeiture restrictions. Reference herein to a "Section" shall be to a section of the Plan unless indicated otherwise.

12.14    Governing Law; Venue. The provisions of the Plan and the rights of all persons claiming thereunder shall be construed, administered and governed in all respects under the laws of the State of Ohio.

LOGO

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

518 E. BROAD ST.

COLUMBUS, OH 43215

VOTE BY INTERNET -www.proxyvote.com

Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time the day before the cut-off date or meeting date. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form.

ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS

If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by our company in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access proxy materials electronically in future years.

VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903

Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time the day before the cut-off date or meeting date. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions.

VOTE BY MAIL

Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717.

TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:
M85067-P59657KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS

— — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — —

DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY
THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

    For    

All

Withhold

All

For All    

Except    

To withhold authority to vote for any individual nominee(s), mark “For All Except” and write the number(s) of the nominee(s) on the line below.

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the following:

¨

¨

¨

1.

Election of Directors

Nominees:

01)  Michael J. Fiorile

02)  Michael E. LaRocco

03)  Eileen A. Mallesch

04)  Robert P. Restrepo, Jr.

The Board of Directors recommends you vote FOR Proposals 2, 3 and 4:

ForAgainstAbstain

2.

Proposal to amend the Company’s 1991 Employee Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan.

¨

¨

¨

3.

Ratification of selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s registered public accounting firm for 2015.

¨

¨

¨

4.

Advisory Vote - Approval of the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as disclosed in the Proxy Statement for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

¨

¨

¨

NOTE:In addition, the named proxies are authorized to vote, in their discretion, upon such other matters as may properly come before the Annual Meeting or any adjournment thereof.

Yes

No

Please indicate if you plan to attend this meeting.

¨

¨

Please sign exactly as your name(s) appear(s) hereon. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, or other fiduciary, please give full title as such. Joint owners should each sign personally. All holders must sign. If a corporation or partnership, please sign in full corporate or partnership name by authorized officer.

Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX]

Date

Signature (Joint Owners)

Date

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting:The Annual Report, Notice and Proxy Statement are available atwww.proxyvote.com.

— — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  — — — — — — — — —

M85068-P59657         

STATE AUTO FINANCIAL CORPORATION

ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

This Proxy is Solicited on BehalfOhio, excluding any conflicts or choice of law rule or principle that might otherwise refer construction or interpretation of the BoardPlan to the substantive law of Directors of

State Auto Financial Corporation

The undersigned hereby appoints Robert P. Restrepo, Jr., andanother jurisdiction. Unless otherwise provided in the event he is unableAward Agreement, recipients of an Award under the Plan are deemed to so act, any onesubmit to the sole and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal or bothstate courts of Steven E. English and James A. Yano, proxies, with full powerthe State of substitution,Ohio to represent and vote all common shares, without par value (the “Shares”), of State Auto Financial Corporation (the “Company”) which the undersigned would be entitled to vote if personally present at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held at the Company’s principal executive offices located at 518 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, on May 8, 2015, at 11:00 a.m., local time, and atresolve any and all adjournments thereof, as specified in this Proxy.

The Shares represented by this Proxy will be voted uponissues that may arise out of or relate to the proposals listed on the reverse side in accordance with the instructions given by the undersigned, but if this Proxy is signed and returned and no instructions are given, this Proxy will be voted FOR the election of all nominees set forth in Proposal 1, FOR Proposals 2, 3 and 4 and, in the discretion of the proxies, on any other matter which properly comes before the Annual MeetingPlan or any adjournment thereof.related Award Agreement.

(Continued and to be signed on the reverse side)



proxybackcoverrgba01.jpg