UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

þ		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2006

OR

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ___ to ___

Commission File Number 1-5823

CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		36-6169860 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
333 S. Wabash Chicago, Illinois (Address of principal executive offices)		60604 (Zip Code)

(312) 822-5000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock with a par value of $2.50 per share		New York Stock Exchange Chicago Stock Exchange NYSE Arca

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

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

Large Accelerated Filer þ Accelerated Filer o Non-Accelerated Filer o

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

As of February 16, 2007, 271,406,984 shares of common stock were outstanding. The aggregate market value of the common stock of CNA Financial Corporation held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2006 was approximately $738 million based on the closing price of $32.96 per share of the common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2006.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the CNA Financial Corporation Proxy Statement prepared for the 2007 annual meeting of shareholders, pursuant to Regulation 14A, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report.

 

 

Item				Page
Number				Number
PART I
1.		Business			3
1A.		Risk Factors			8
1B.		Unresolved Staff Comments			15
2.		Properties			15
3.		Legal Proceedings			15
4.		Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders			15
PART II
5.		Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities			16
6.		Selected Financial Data			17
7.		Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			18
7A.		Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk			60
8.		Financial Statements and Supplementary Data			65
9.		Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure			139
9A.		Controls and Procedures			139
9B.		Other Information			139
PART III
10.		Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance			140
11.		Executive Compensation			141
12.		Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters			141
13.		Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence			141
14.		Principal Accounting Fees and Services			141
PART IV
15.		Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules			142
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation
Amendment to Employment Agreement
Significant Subsidiaries
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Certification
Certification
Certification
Certification

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

CNA Financial Corporation (CNAF) was incorporated in 1967 and is an insurance holding company. Collectively, CNAF and its subsidiaries are referred to as CNA or the Company. References to “CNA,” “the Company,” “we,” “our,” “us” or like terms refer to the business of CNA and its subsidiaries. Our property and casualty insurance operations are conducted by Continental Casualty Company (CCC), incorporated in 1897, and its affiliates, and The Continental Insurance Company (CIC), organized in 1853, and its affiliates. CIC became a subsidiary of ours in 1995 as a result of the acquisition of The Continental Corporation (Continental). Loews Corporation (Loews) owned approximately 89% of our outstanding common stock as of December 31, 2006.

We serve a wide variety of customers, including small, medium and large businesses, associations, professionals, and groups and individuals with a broad range of insurance and risk management products and services.

Our insurance products primarily include property and casualty coverages. Our services include risk management, information services, warranty and claims administration. Our products and services are marketed through independent agents, brokers, managing general agents and direct sales.

Our core business, property and casualty insurance operations, is reported in two business segments: Standard Lines and Specialty Lines. Our non-core operations are managed in two segments: Life and Group Non-Core and Corporate and Other Non-Core. These segments are managed separately because of differences in their product lines and markets. Discussions of each segment including the products offered, the customers served, the distribution channels used and competition are set forth in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) included under Item 7 and in Note N of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Competition

The property and casualty insurance industry is highly competitive both as to rate and service. Our consolidated property and casualty subsidiaries compete not only with other stock insurance companies, but also with mutual insurance companies, reinsurance companies and other entities for both producers and customers. We must continuously allocate resources to refine and improve our insurance products and services.

Rates among insurers vary according to the types of insurers and methods of operation. We compete for business not only on the basis of rate, but also on the basis of availability of coverage desired by customers, ratings and quality of service, including claim adjustment services.

There are approximately 2,400 individual companies that sell property and casualty insurance in the United States. Our consolidated property and casualty subsidiaries ranked as the 13th largest property and casualty insurance organization and we are the seventh largest commercial insurance writer in the United States based upon 2005 statutory net written premiums.

Regulation

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

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

Further, insurance companies are subject to state guaranty fund and other insurance-related assessments. Guaranty fund and other insurance-related assessments are levied by the state departments of insurance to cover claims of insolvent insurers.

Reform of the U.S. tort liability system is another issue facing the insurance industry. Over the last decade, many states have passed some type of reform. In recent years, for example, significant state general tort reforms have been enacted in Georgia, Ohio, Mississippi and South Carolina. Specific state legislation addressing state asbestos reform has been passed in Ohio, Georgia, Florida and Texas. A few more states will be considering such legislation in the coming year. Although these states’ legislatures have begun to address their litigious environments, some reforms are being challenged in the courts and it will take some time before they are finalized. Even though there has been some tort reform success, new causes of action and theories of damages continue to be proposed in state court actions or by legislatures. As a result of this unpredictability in the law, insurance underwriting and rating is expected to continue to be difficult in commercial lines, professional liability and some specialty coverages.

Although the federal government and its regulatory agencies do not directly regulate the business of insurance, federal legislative and regulatory initiatives can impact the insurance industry in a variety of ways. These initiatives and legislation include tort reform proposals; proposals addressing natural catastrophe exposures; terrorism risk mechanisms; and various tax proposals affecting insurance companies. In 1999, Congress passed the Financial Services Modernization or “Gramm-Leach-Bliley” Act (GLB Act), which repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act and enabled closer relationships between banks and insurers. Although “functional regulation” was preserved by the GLB Act for state oversight of insurance, additional financial services modernization legislation could include provisions for an alternate federal system of regulation for insurance companies.

In addition, our domestic insurance subsidiaries are subject to risk-based capital requirements. Risk-based capital is a method developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to determine the minimum amount of statutory capital appropriate for an insurance company to support its overall business operations in consideration of its size and risk profile. The formula for determining the amount of risk-based capital specifies various factors, weighted based on the perceived degree of risk, which are applied to certain financial balances and financial activity. The adequacy of a company’s actual capital is evaluated by a comparison to the risk-based capital results, as determined by the formula. Companies below minimum risk-based capital requirements are classified within certain levels, each of which requires specified corrective action. As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, all of our domestic insurance subsidiaries exceeded the minimum risk-based capital requirements.

Subsidiaries with insurance operations outside the United States are also subject to regulation in the countries in which they operate. We have operations in the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries.

Employee Relations

As of December 31, 2006, we had approximately 9,800 employees and have experienced satisfactory labor relations. We have never had work stoppages due to labor disputes.

We have comprehensive benefit plans for substantially all of our employees, including retirement plans, savings plans, disability programs, group life programs and group healthcare programs. See Note J of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 for further discussion of our benefit plans.

Supplementary Insurance Data

The following table sets forth supplementary insurance data:

Supplementary Insurance Data

Years ended December 31
(In millions, except ratio information)		2006				2005				2004
Trade Ratios — GAAP basis (a)
Loss and loss adjustment expense ratio			75.7	%			89.4	%			74.6	%
Expense ratio			30.0				31.2				31.5
Dividend ratio			0.3				0.3				0.2
Combined ratio			106.0	%			120.9	%			106.3	%
Trade Ratios — Statutory basis (preliminary) (a)
Loss and loss adjustment expense ratio			78.7	%			92.2	%			78.1	%
Expense ratio			30.2				30.0				27.2
Dividend ratio			0.2				0.5				0.6
Combined ratio			109.1	%			122.7	%			105.9	%
Individual Life and Group Life Insurance Inforce
Individual life		$	9,866			$	10,711			$	11,566
Group life			5,787				9,838				45,079
Total		$	15,653			$	20,549			$	56,645
Other Data — Statutory basis (preliminary) (b)
Property and casualty companies’ capital and surplus (c)		$	8,137			$	6,940			$	6,998
Life company’s capital and surplus			687				627				1,177
Property and casualty companies’ written premiums to surplus ratio			0.9				1.0				1.0
Life company’s capital and surplus-percent to total liabilities			38.9	%			33.1	%			56.0	%
Participating policyholders-percent of gross life insurance inforce			4.4	%			3.5	%			1.4	%

The following table displays the distribution of gross written premiums for our operations by geographic concentration.

Gross Written Premiums

		Percent of Total
Years ended December 31		2006				2005				2004
California			9.6	%			9.0	%			9.3	%
Florida			7.9				7.1				7.1
New York			7.3				7.9				7.9
Texas			5.9				5.7				5.4
New Jersey			4.4				3.8				5.3
Illinois			4.1				4.2				5.1
Pennsylvania			3.4				4.2				4.7
United Kingdom			3.2				2.8				2.3
Missouri			3.0				2.8				1.4
Massachusetts			2.4				3.3				3.2
All other states, countries or political subdivisions (a)			48.8				49.2				48.3
Total			100.0	%			100.0	%			100.0	%

Approximately 7.1%, 6.1% and 5.0% of our gross written premiums were derived from outside of the United States for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004. Premiums from any individual foreign country excluding the United Kingdom were not significant.

Property and Casualty Claim and Claim Adjustment Expenses

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

The loss reserve development table for property and casualty companies is cumulative and, therefore, ending balances should not be added since the amount at the end of each calendar year includes activity for both the current and prior years. Additionally, the development amounts in the table below are the amounts prior to consideration of any related reinsurance bad debt allowance impacts.

Schedule of Loss Reserve Development

Calendar Year Ended
(In millions)		1996				1997				1998				1999 (a)				2000				2001 (b)				2002 (c)				2003				2004				2005				2006
Originally reported gross reserves for unpaid claim and claim adjustment expenses		$	29,559			$	28,731			$	28,506			$	26,850			$	26,510			$	29,649			$	25,719			$	31,284			$	31,204			$	30,694			$	29,459
Originally reported ceded recoverable			5,385				5,056				5,182				6,091				7,333				11,703				10,490				13,847				13,682				10,438				8,078
Originally reported net reserves for unpaid claim and claim adjustment expenses		$	24,174			$	23,675			$	23,324			$	20,759			$	19,177			$	17,946			$	15,229			$	17,437			$	17,522			$	20,256			$	21,381
Cumulative net paid as of:
One year later		$	5,851			$	5,954			$	7,321			$	6,547			$	7,686			$	5,981			$	5,373			$	4,382			$	2,651			$	3,442			$	—
Two years later			9,796				11,394				12,241				11,937				11,992				10,355				8,768				6,104				4,963				—				—
Three years later			13,602				14,423				16,020				15,256				15,291				12,954				9,747				7,780				—				—				—
Four years later			15,793				17,042				18,271				18,151				17,333				13,244				10,870				—				—				—				—
Five years later			17,736				18,568				20,779				19,686				17,775				13,922				—				—				—				—				—
Six years later			18,878				20,723				21,970				20,206				18,970				—				—				—				—				—				—
Seven years later			20,828				21,649				22,564				21,231				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Eight years later			21,609				22,077				23,453				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Nine years later			21,986				22,800				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Ten years later			22,642				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Net reserves re-estimated as of:
End of initial year		$	24,174			$	23,675			$	23,324			$	20,759			$	19,177			$	17,946			$	15,229			$	17,437			$	17,522			$	20,256			$	21,381
One year later			23,970				23,904				24,306				21,163				21,502				17,980				17,650				17,671				18,513				20,588				—
Two years later			23,610				24,106				24,134				23,217				21,555				20,533				18,248				19,120				19,044				—				—
Three years later			23,735				23,776				26,038				23,081				24,058				21,109				19,814				19,760				—				—				—
Four years later			23,417				25,067				25,711				25,590				24,587				22,547				20,384				—				—				—				—
Five years later			24,499				24,636				27,754				26,000				25,594				22,983				—				—				—				—				—
Six years later			24,120				26,338				28,078				26,625				26,023				—				—				—				—				—				—
Seven years later			25,629				26,537				28,437				27,009				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Eight years later			25,813				26,770				28,705				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Nine years later			26,072				26,997				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Ten years later			26,305				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—				—
Total net (deficiency) redundancy		$	(2,131	)		$	(3,322	)		$	(5,381	)		$	(6,250	)		$	(6,846	)		$	(5,037	)		$	(5,155	)		$	(2,323	)		$	(1,522	)		$	(332	)		$	—
Reconciliation to gross re-estimated reserves:
Net reserves re-estimated		$	26,305			$	26,997			$	28,705			$	27,009			$	26,023			$	22,983			$	20,384			$	19,760			$	19,044			$	20,588			$	—
Re-estimated ceded recoverable			7,619				6,953				7,469				9,810				10,541				15,939				15,298				13,722				12,624				10,094				—
Total gross re-estimated reserves		$	33,924			$	33,950			$	36,174			$	36,819			$	36,564			$	38,922			$	35,682			$	33,482			$	31,668			$	30,682			$	—
Net (deficiency) redundancy related to:
Asbestos claims		$	(2,461	)		$	(2,361	)		$	(2,120	)		$	(1,544	)		$	(1,479	)		$	(707	)		$	(707	)		$	(65	)		$	(11	)		$	—			$	—
Environmental and mass tort claims			(807	)			(834	)			(618	)			(722	)			(716	)			(256	)			(263	)			(117	)			(116	)			(63	)			—
Total asbestos, environmental and mass tort			(3,268	)			(3,195	)			(2,738	)			(2,266	)			(2,195	)			(963	)			(970	)			(182	)			(127	)			(63	)			—
Other claims			1,137				(127	)			(2,643	)			(3,984	)			(4,651	)			(4,074	)			(4,185	)			(2,141	)			(1,395	)			(269	)			—
Total net (deficiency) redundancy		$	(2,131	)		$	(3,322	)		$	(5,381	)		$	(6,250	)		$	(6,846	)		$	(5,037	)		$	(5,155	)		$	(2,323	)		$	(1,522	)		$	(332	)		$	—

Additional information regarding our property and casualty claim and claim adjustment expense reserves and reserve development is set forth in the MD&A included under Item 7 and in Notes A and F of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Investments

Information on our investments is set forth in the MD&A included under Item 7 and in Notes A, B, C and D of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Available Information

We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The public may read and copy any materials that we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. Also, the SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers, including CNA, that file electronically with the SEC. The public can obtain any documents that we file with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.

We also make available free of charge on or through our internet website (http://www.cna.com) our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Copies of these reports may also be obtained, free of charge, upon written request to: CNA Financial Corporation, 333 S. Wabash Avenue, Chicago, IL 60604, Attn. Jonathan D. Kantor, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

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

If we determine that loss reserves are insufficient to cover our estimated ultimate unpaid liability for claims, we may need to increase our loss reserves.

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

period the change in estimate is made. These charges can be substantial and can have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and equity. Additional information on our reserves is included in Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) under Item 7 and Note F to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

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

•		increases in the number and size of claims relating to injuries from medical products;
•		the effects of accounting and financial reporting scandals and other major corporate governance failures, which have resulted in an increase in the number and size of claims, including director and officer and errors and omissions insurance claims;
•		class action litigation relating to claims handling and other practices;
•		construction defect claims, including claims for a broad range of additional insured endorsements on policies;
•		clergy abuse claims, including passage of legislation to reopen or extend various statutes of limitations; and
•		mass tort claims, including bodily injury claims related to silica, welding rods, benzene, lead and various other chemical exposure claims.

In light of the many uncertainties associated with establishing the estimates and making the assumptions necessary to establish reserve levels, we review and change our reserve estimates in a regular and ongoing process as experience develops and further claims are reported and settled. In addition, we periodically undergo state regulatory financial examinations, including review and analysis of our reserves. If estimated reserves are insufficient for any reason, the required increase in reserves would be recorded as a charge against our earnings for the period in which reserves are determined to be insufficient. These charges can be substantial and can materially adversely affect our results of operations and equity.

Loss reserves for asbestos, environmental pollution and mass torts are especially difficult to estimate and may result in more frequent and larger additions to these reserves.

Our experience has been that establishing reserves for casualty coverages relating to asbestos, environmental pollution and mass tort (which we refer to as APMT) claim and claim adjustment expenses is subject to uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other claims. Estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and unreported asbestos, environmental pollution and mass tort claims is subject to a higher degree of variability due to a number of additional factors including, among others, the following:

•		coverage issues including whether certain costs are covered under the policies and whether policy limits apply;
•		inconsistent court decisions and developing legal theories;
•		increasingly aggressive tactics of plaintiffs’ lawyers;
•		the risks and lack of predictability inherent in major litigation;
•		changes in the volume of asbestos, environmental pollution and mass tort claims which cannot now be anticipated;
•		continued increases in mass tort claims relating to silica and silica-containing products;
•		the impact of the exhaustion of primary limits and the resulting increase in claims on any umbrella or excess policies we have issued;
•		the number and outcome of direct actions against us;

•		our ability to recover reinsurance for these claims; and
•		changes in the legal and legislative environment in which we operate.

As a result of this higher degree of variability, we have necessarily supplemented traditional actuarial methods and techniques with additional estimating techniques and methodologies, many of which involve significant judgment on our part. Consequently, we may periodically need to record changes in our claim and claim adjustment expense reserves in the future in these areas in amounts that may be material. Additional information on APMT is included in MD&A under Item 7 and Note F to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

     Environmental pollution claims. The estimation of reserves for environmental pollution claims is complicated by the assertion by many policyholders of claims for defense costs and indemnification. We and others in the insurance industry are disputing coverage for many such claims. Key coverage issues in these claims include the following:

•		whether cleanup costs are considered damages under the policies (and accordingly whether we would be liable for these costs);
•		the trigger of coverage and the allocation of liability among triggered policies;
•		the applicability of pollution exclusions and owned property exclusions;
•		the potential for joint and several liability; and
•		the definition of an occurrence.

To date, courts have been inconsistent in their rulings on these issues, thus adding to the uncertainty of the outcome of many of these claims.

Further, the scope of federal and state statutes and regulations determining liability and insurance coverage for environmental pollution liabilities have been the subject of extensive litigation. In many cases, courts have expanded the scope of coverage and liability for cleanup costs beyond the original intent of our insurance policies. Additionally, the standards for cleanup in environmental pollution matters are unclear, the number of sites potentially subject to cleanup under applicable laws is unknown, and the impact of various proposals to reform existing statutes and regulations is difficult to predict.

     Asbestos claims. The estimation of reserves for asbestos claims is particularly difficult for many of the same reasons discussed above for environmental pollution claims, as well as the following:

•		inconsistency of court decisions and jury attitudes, as well as future court decisions;
•		specific policy provisions;
•		allocation of liability among insurers and insureds;
•		missing policies and proof of coverage;
•		the proliferation of bankruptcy proceedings and attendant uncertainties;
•		novel theories asserted by policyholders and their legal counsel;
•		the targeting of a broader range of businesses and entities as defendants;
•		uncertainties in predicting the number of future claims and which other insureds may be targeted in the future;
•		volatility in claim numbers and settlement demands;
•		increases in the number of non-impaired claimants and the extent to which they can be precluded from making claims;
•		the efforts by insureds to obtain coverage that is not subject to aggregate limits;
•		the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation, as well as the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for individual claims;
•		medical inflation trends;

•		the mix of asbestos-related diseases presented; and
•		the ability to recover reinsurance.

In addition, a number of our insureds have asserted that their claims for insurance are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. If these insureds are successful in this regard, our potential liability for their claims would be unlimited. Some of these insureds contend that their asbestos claims fall within the so-called “non-products” liability coverage within their policies, rather than the products liability coverage, and that this “non-products” liability coverage is not subject to any aggregate limit. It is difficult to predict the extent to which these claims will succeed and, as a result, the ultimate size of these claims.

Catastrophe losses are unpredictable.

Catastrophe losses are an inevitable part of our business. Various events can cause catastrophe losses, including hurricanes, windstorms, earthquakes, hail, explosions, severe winter weather, and fires, and their frequency and severity are inherently unpredictable. In addition, longer-term natural catastrophe trends may be changing and new types of catastrophe losses may be developing due to climate change, a phenomenon that has been associated with extreme weather events linked to rising temperatures, and includes effects on global weather patterns, greenhouse gases, sea, land and air temperatures, sea levels, rain, and snow. For example, in 2005, we experienced substantial losses from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and in 2004, we experienced substantial losses from Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne. The extent of our losses from catastrophes is a function of both the total amount of our insured exposures in the affected areas and the severity of the events themselves. In addition, as in the case of catastrophe losses generally, it can take a long time for the ultimate cost to us to be finally determined. As our claim experience develops on a particular catastrophe, we may be required to adjust our reserves, or take additional unfavorable development, to reflect our revised estimates of the total cost of claims. We believe we could incur significant catastrophe losses in the future. Additional information on catastrophe losses is included in the MD&A under Item 7 and Note F to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Our key assumptions used to determine reserves and deferred acquisition costs for our long term care product offerings could vary significantly.

Our reserves and deferred acquisition costs for our long term care product offerings are based on certain key assumptions including morbidity, which is the frequency and severity of illness, sickness and diseases contracted, policy persistency, which is the percentage of policies remaining in force, interest rates and/or future health care cost trends. If actual experience differs from these assumptions, the deferred acquisition costs may not be fully recovered and the reserves may not be adequate, requiring us to add to reserves, or take unfavorable development. Therefore, our financial results could be adversely impacted.

We continue to face exposure to losses arising from terrorist acts, despite the passage of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005.

We may bear substantial losses from future acts of terrorism. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (TRIEA) extended, until December 31, 2007, the program established by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. Under this program, insurers are required to offer terrorism insurance and the federal government will share the risk of loss by commercial property and casualty insurers arising from future terrorist attacks. TRIEA does not provide complete protection for future losses derived from acts of terrorism. Additional information on TRIEA is included in the MD&A under Item 7.

High levels of retained overhead expenses associated with business lines in run-off negatively impact our operating results.

During the past few years, we ceased offering certain insurance products relating principally to our life, group and reinsurance segments. Many of these business lines were sold, others have been placed in run-off and, as a result, revenue will progressively decrease. Our results of operations have been materially, adversely affected by the high levels of retained overhead expenses associated with these run-off operations, and will continue to be so affected if we are not successful in eliminating or reducing these costs.

Our premium writings and profitability are affected by the availability and cost of reinsurance.

We purchase reinsurance to help manage our exposure to risk. Under our reinsurance arrangements, another insurer assumes a specified portion of our claim and claim adjustment expenses in exchange for a specified portion of policy premiums. Market conditions determine the availability and cost of the reinsurance protection we purchase,

which affects the level of our business and profitability, as well as the level and types of risk we retain. If we are unable to obtain sufficient reinsurance at a cost we deem acceptable, we may be unwilling to bear the increased risk and would reduce the level of our underwriting commitments. Additional information on Reinsurance is included in the MD&A under Item 7 and Note H to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

We may not be able to collect amounts owed to us by reinsurers.

We have significant amounts recoverable from reinsurers which are reported as receivables in our balance sheets and are estimated in a manner consistent with claim and claim adjustment expense reserves or future policy benefits reserves. The ceding of insurance does not, however, discharge our primary liability for claims. As a result, we are subject to credit risk relating to our ability to recover amounts due from reinsurers. Certain of our reinsurance carriers have experienced deteriorating financial conditions or have been downgraded by rating agencies. In addition, reinsurers could dispute amounts which we believe are due to us. If we are not able to collect the amounts due to us from reinsurers, our claims expenses will be higher which could materially adversely affect our results of operations or equity. Additional information on reinsurance is included in the MD&A under Item 7 and Note H to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Rating agencies may downgrade their ratings of us and thereby adversely affect our ability to write insurance at competitive rates or at all.

Ratings are an increasingly important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. Our insurance company subsidiaries, as well as our public debt, are rated by four major rating agencies, namely, A.M. Best Company, Inc., Standard & Poor’s Rating Services, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and Fitch, Inc. Ratings reflect the rating agency’s opinions of an insurance company’s financial strength, capital adequacy, operating performance, strategic position and ability to meet its obligations to policyholders and debtholders. Agency ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security, and may be revised or withdrawn at any time by the issuing organization. Each agency’s rating should be evaluated independently of any other agency’s rating.

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

In addition, we believe that a lowering of the debt ratings of Loews Corporation by certain of the rating agencies could result in an adverse impact on our ratings, independent of any change in our circumstances. We have entered into several settlement agreements and assumed reinsurance contracts that require collateralization of future payment obligations and assumed reserves if our ratings or other specific criteria fall below certain thresholds. The ratings triggers are generally more than one level below our current ratings. Additional information on our ratings is included in the MD&A under Item 7.

We are subject to extensive federal, state and local governmental regulations that restrict our ability to do business and generate revenues.

The insurance industry is subject to comprehensive and detailed regulation and supervision throughout the United States. Most insurance regulations are designed to protect the interests of our policyholders rather than our investors. Each state in which we do business has established supervisory agencies that regulate the manner in which we do business. Their regulations relate to, among other things, the following:

•		standards of solvency including risk-based capital measurements;
•		restrictions on the nature, quality and concentration of investments;
•		restrictions on our ability to withdraw from unprofitable lines of insurance;
•		the required use of certain methods of accounting and reporting;

•		the establishment of reserves for unearned premiums, losses and other purposes;
•		potential assessments for funds necessary to settle covered claims against impaired, insolvent or failed insurance companies;
•		licensing of insurers and agents;
•		approval of policy forms; and
•		limitations on the ability of our insurance subsidiaries to pay dividends to us.

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

We are subject to capital adequacy requirements and, if we do not meet these requirements, regulatory agencies may restrict or prohibit us from operating our business.

Insurance companies such as us are subject to risk-based capital standards set by state regulators to help identify companies that merit further regulatory attention. These standards apply specified risk factors to various asset, premium and reserve components of our statutory capital and surplus reported in our statutory basis of accounting financial statements. Current rules require companies to maintain statutory capital and surplus at a specified minimum level determined using the risk-based capital formula. If we do not meet these minimum requirements, state regulators may restrict or prohibit us from operating our business. If we are required to record a charge against earnings in connection with a change in estimates or circumstances, we may violate these minimum capital adequacy requirements unless we are able to raise sufficient additional capital. Examples of events leading us to record a charge against earnings include impairment of our investments or unexpectedly poor claims experience.

Our insurance subsidiaries, upon whom we depend for dividends in order to fund our working capital needs, are limited by state regulators in their ability to pay dividends.

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

We are responding to subpoenas, interrogatories and inquiries relating to insurance brokers and agents, contingent commissions and bidding practices, and certain finite-risk insurance products.

Along with other companies in the industry, we have received subpoenas, interrogatories and inquiries from: (i) California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia and the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators concerning investigations into practices including contingent compensation arrangements, fictitious quotes, and tying arrangements; (ii) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the New York State Attorney General, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the Connecticut Attorney General, the Connecticut Department of Insurance, the Delaware Department of Insurance, the Georgia Office of Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner and the California Department of Insurance concerning reinsurance products and finite insurance products purchased and sold by us; (iii) the Massachusetts Attorney General and the Connecticut Attorney General concerning investigations into anti-competitive practices; and (iv) the New York State Attorney General concerning declinations of attorney malpractice insurance. We continue to respond to these subpoenas, interrogatories and inquiries to the extent they are still open.

Subsequent to receipt of the SEC subpoena, we produced documents and provided additional information at the SEC’s request. In addition, the SEC and representatives of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York conducted interviews with several of our current and former executives relating to the

restatement of our financial results for 2004, including our relationship with and accounting for transactions with an affiliate that were the basis for the restatement. The SEC also requested information relating to our restatement in 2006 of prior period results. It is possible that our analyses of, or accounting treatment for, finite reinsurance contracts or discontinued operations could be questioned or disputed by regulatory authorities. As a result, further restatements of our financial results are possible.

In prior years, we restated our financial results and identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting.

In May of 2005 we restated our financial results for prior years to correct our accounting for several reinsurance contracts, primarily with a former affiliate, and to correct our equity accounting for that affiliate. In February of 2006 we restated our financial results for prior years to correct the accounting for discontinued operations acquired in our merger with The Continental Corporation in 1995. Additionally, in March of 2006, we restated our financial results for prior years to correct classification errors within our Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

As a result of the foregoing restatements, we identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and 2005, respectively. We also determined that our internal control over financial reporting as of such dates was not effective. Our system of internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance to our management, Audit Committee and Board of Directors regarding the reliability of our financial reporting and the preparation and fair presentation of our published financial statements. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the implementing rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the periodic reports we file with the SEC include information on our system of disclosure controls and procedures, as well as our overall internal control over financial reporting.

While we have remediated the referenced material weaknesses, if we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we could be scrutinized by regulators in a manner that extends beyond the SEC’s requests for information relating to the restatements (as further described in the prior risk factor). We could also be scrutinized by securities analysts and investors. As a result of this scrutiny, we could suffer a loss of public confidence in our financial reporting capabilities and thereby face adverse effects on our business and the market price of our securities.

Our investment portfolio, which is a key component of our overall profitability, may suffer reduced returns or losses, especially with respect to our equity in various limited partnership net assets which are often subject to greater leverage and volatility.

Investment returns are an important part of our overall profitability. General economic conditions, stock market conditions, fluctuations in interest rates, and many other factors beyond our control can adversely affect the returns and the overall value of our equity investments and our ability to control the timing of the realization of investment income. In addition, any defaults in the payments due to us for our investments, especially with respect to liquid corporate and municipal bonds, could reduce our investment income and realized investment gains or could cause us to incur investment losses. Further, we invest a portion of our assets in equity investments, primarily through limited partnerships, which are subject to greater volatility than our fixed income investments. In some cases, these limited partnerships use leverage and are thereby subject to even greater volatility. Although limited partnership investments generally provide higher expected return, they present greater risk and are more illiquid than our fixed income investments. As a result of these factors, we may not realize an adequate return on our investments, may incur losses on sales of our investments and may be required to write down the value of our investments.

We may be adversely affected by the cyclical nature of the property and casualty business.

The property and casualty market is cyclical and has experienced periods characterized by relatively high levels of price competition, less restrictive underwriting standards and relatively low premium rates, followed by periods of relatively lower levels of competition, more selective underwriting standards and relatively high premium rates.

We face intense competition in our industry.

All aspects of the insurance industry are highly competitive and we must continuously allocate resources to refine and improve our insurance products and services. Insurers compete on the basis of factors including products, price, services, ratings and financial strength. We may lose business to competitors offering competitive insurance products at lower prices. We compete with a large number of stock and mutual insurance companies and other entities for both distributors and customers. In addition, the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 has encouraged

growth in the number, size and financial strength of our potential competitors by removing barriers that previously prohibited holding companies from simultaneously owning commercial banks, insurers and securities firms.

We may suffer losses from non-routine litigation and arbitration matters which may exceed the reserves we have established.

We face substantial risks of litigation and arbitration beyond ordinary course claims and APMT matters, which may contain assertions in excess of amounts covered by reserves that we have established. These matters may be difficult to assess or quantify and may seek recovery of very large or indeterminate amounts that include punitive or treble damages. Accordingly, unfavorable results in these proceedings could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

Additional information on litigation is included in the MD&A under Item 7 and Note G to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

We are dependent on a small number of key executives and other key personnel to operate our business successfully.

Our success substantially depends upon our ability to attract and retain high quality key executives and other employees. We believe there are only a limited number of available qualified executives in the business lines in which we compete. We rely substantially upon the services of our executive officers to implement our business strategy. The loss of the services of any members of our management team or the inability to attract and retain other talented personnel could impede the implementation of our business strategies. We do not maintain key man life insurance policies with respect to any of our employees.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

The 333 S. Wabash Avenue building, located in Chicago, Illinois and owned by Continental Assurance Company (CAC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CCC, serves as our home office. Our subsidiaries own or lease office space in various cities throughout the United States and in other countries. The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our principal office locations:

		Amount (Square Feet) of Building
		Owned and Occupied or Leased
Location		and Occupied by CNA				Principal Usage
333 S. Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois			904,990			Principal executive offices of CNAF
401 Penn Street, Reading, Pennsylvania			171,406			Property and casualty insurance offices
2405 Lucien Way, Maitland, Florida			147,815			Property and casualty insurance offices
40 Wall Street, New York, New York			110,131			Property and casualty insurance offices
675 Placentia Avenue, Brea, California			78,655			Property and casualty insurance offices
600 N. Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas			75,544			Property and casualty insurance offices
1100 Cornwall Road, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey			74,067			Property and casualty insurance offices
3175 Satellite Boulevard, Duluth, Georgia			48,696			Property and casualty insurance offices
405 Howard Street, San Francisco, California			47,195			Property and casualty insurance offices
4150 N. Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale, Arizona			37,799			Property and casualty insurance offices

We lease our office space described above except for the Chicago, Illinois building and the Reading, Pennsylvania building, which are owned. We consider that our properties are generally in good condition, are well maintained and are suitable and adequate to carry on our business.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Information on our legal proceedings is set forth in Notes F and G of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

None.

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the Chicago Stock Exchange, the NYSE Arca and is traded on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, under the symbol CNA.

As of February 16, 2006, we had 271,406,984 shares of common stock outstanding. Approximately 89% of our outstanding common stock is owned by Loews. We had 2,094 stockholders of record as of February 16, 2006 according to the records maintained by our transfer agent.

The table below shows the high and low closing sales prices for our common stock based on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transactions.

Common Stock Information

		2006								2005
		High				Low				High				Low
Quarter:
Fourth		$	40.32			$	36.19			$	34.91			$	28.52
Third			36.04				33.05				30.46				28.40
Second			33.20				30.90				28.90				26.21
First			33.60				29.88				29.79				25.84

No dividends have been paid on our common stock in 2006 or 2005. Our ability to pay dividends is limited by regulatory dividend restrictions on our principal operating insurance subsidiaries. The following graph compares the total return of our common stock, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Composite Stock Index (“S&P 500”) and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Property & Casualty Insurance Index for the five years ended December 31, 2006. The graph assumes that the value of the investment in our common stock and for each index was $100 on December 31, 2001 and that dividends were reinvested.

Stock Price Performance Graph

Company Index		2001				2002				2003				2004				2005				2006
CNA Financial Corp.			100				87.76				82.62				91.70				112.20				138.22
S&P 500 Index			100				77.90				100.25				111.15				116.61				135.03
S&P Property & Casualty Insurance			100				88.98				112.48				124.20				142.97				161.38

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table presents selected financial data. The table should be read in conjunction with Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K.

Selected Financial Data

As of and for the Years Ended
December 31
(In millions, except per share data and ratios)		2006				2005				2004				2003				2002
Results of Operations:
Revenues		$	10,376			$	9,862			$	9,924			$	11,715			$	12,293
Income (loss) from continuing operations		$	1,137			$	243			$	446			$	(1,419	)		$	263
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax			(29	)			21				(21	)			2				(43	)
Cumulative effects of changes in accounting principles, net of tax			—				—				—				—				(57	)
Net income (loss)		$	1,108			$	264			$	425			$	(1,417	)		$	163
Basic Earnings (Loss) per Share:
Income (loss) from continuing operations		$	4.17			$	0.68			$	1.49			$	(6.52	)		$	1.18
Income (loss) from discontinued operations			(0.11	)			0.08				(0.09	)			0.01				(0.20	)
Cumulative effects of changes in accounting principles			—				—				—				—				(0.26	)
Basic earnings (loss) per share available to common stockholders		$	4.06			$	0.76			$	1.40			$	(6.51	)		$	0.72
Diluted Earnings (Loss) per Share:
Income (loss) from continuing operations		$	4.16			$	0.68			$	1.49			$	(6.52	)		$	1.18
Income (loss) from discontinued operations			(0.11	)			0.08				(0.09	)			0.01				(0.20	)
Cumulative effects of changes in accounting principles			—				—				—				—				(0.26	)
Diluted earnings (loss) per share available to common stockholders		$	4.05			$	0.76			$	1.40			$	(6.51	)		$	0.72
Financial Condition:
Total investments		$	44,096			$	39,695			$	39,231			$	38,100			$	35,293
Total assets			60,283				59,016				62,496				68,296				61,426
Insurance reserves			41,080				42,436				43,653				45,494				40,250
Long and short term debt			2,156				1,690				2,257				1,904				2,292
Stockholders’ equity			9,768				8,950				8,974				8,735				9,139
Book value per share		$	36.03			$	31.26			$	31.63			$	30.95			$	37.51
Statutory Surplus (preliminary):
Property and casualty companies (a)		$	8,137			$	6,940			$	6,998			$	6,170			$	6,836
Life and group insurance company(ies)			687				627				1,177				707				1,645

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Overview

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with Item 1A. Risk Factors, Item 6. Selected Financial Data and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data of this Form 10-K.

Index to this MD&A

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is comprised of the following sections:

		Page No.
Consolidated Operations		19
Critical Accounting Estimates		22
Reserves — Estimates and Uncertainties		23
Reinsurance		29
Terrorism Insurance		30
Restructuring		30
Segment Results		30
Standard Lines		30
Specialty Lines		33
Life and Group Non-Core		36
Corporate and Other Non-Core		37
Asbestos and Environmental Pollution and Mass Tort (APMT) Reserves		39
Investments		45
Net Investment Income		45
Net Realized Investment Gains (Losses)		46
Valuation and Impairment of Investments		49
Liquidity and Capital Resources		53
Cash Flows		53
Commitments, Contingencies, and Guarantees		53
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements		54
Regulatory Matters		54
Dividends from Subsidiaries		55
Loews		55
Ratings		55
Accounting Pronouncements		56
Forward-Looking Statements		57

CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS

Results of Operations

The following table includes the consolidated results of our operations. For more detailed components of our business operations and the net operating income financial measure, see the segment discussions within this MD&A.

Years ended December 31
(In millions, except per share data)		2006				2005				2004
Revenues
Net earned premiums		$	7,603			$	7,569			$	8,209
Net investment income			2,412				1,892				1,680
Other revenues			275				411				283
Total operating revenues			10,290				9,872				10,172
Claims, Benefits and Expenses
Net incurred claims and benefits			6,025				6,975				6,434
Policyholders’ dividends			22				24				11
Amortization of deferred acquisition costs			1,534				1,543				1,680
Other insurance related expenses			757				829				972
Restructuring and other related charges			(13	)			—				(3	)
Other expenses			401				329				326
Total claims, benefits and expenses			8,726				9,700				9,420
Operating income from continuing operations before income tax and minority interest			1,564				172				752
Income tax (expense) benefit on operating income			(450	)			105				(126	)
Minority interest			(44	)			(24	)			(27	)
Net operating income from continuing operations			1,070				253				599
Realized investment gains (losses), net of participating policyholders’ and minority interests			86				(10	)			(248	)
Income tax (expense) benefit on realized investment gains (losses)			(19	)			—				95
Income from continuing operations			1,137				243				446
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income tax (expense) benefit of $7, $(2) and $(1)			(29	)			21				(21	)
Net income		$	1,108			$	264			$	425
Basic Earnings per Share
Income from continuing operations		$	4.17			$	0.68			$	1.49
Income (loss) from discontinued operations			(0.11	)			0.08				(0.09	)
Basic earnings per share available to common stockholders		$	4.06			$	0.76			$	1.40
Diluted Earnings per Share
Income from continuing operations		$	4.16			$	0.68			$	1.49
Income (loss) from discontinued operations			(0.11	)			0.08				(0.09	)
Diluted earnings per share available to common stockholders		$	4.05			$	0.76			$	1.40
Weighted Average Outstanding Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents
Basic			262.1				256.0				256.0
Diluted			262.3				256.0				256.0

2006 Compared with 2005

Net income increased $844 million in 2006 as compared with 2005. This increase was primarily due to increased net operating income and net realized investment results. These favorable impacts were partially offset by unfavorable results from discontinued operations. See the Investments section of this MD&A for further discussion of net investment income and net realized investment results.

Net operating income from continuing operations increased $817 million in 2006 as compared with 2005. Favorably impacting net operating income was increased net investment income and significantly decreased unfavorable net prior year development as discussed below. The 2005 results included a $334 million after-tax impact of catastrophes resulting from Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Rita, Dennis and Ophelia, net of anticipated reinsurance recoveries. Additionally, the 2005 results included a $115 million benefit related to a federal income tax settlement and release of federal income tax reserves.

Unfavorable net prior year development of $185 million was recorded in 2006, including $251 million of unfavorable claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserve development and $66 million of favorable premium development. Unfavorable net prior year development of $807 million, including $945 million of unfavorable claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserve development and $138 million of favorable premium development, was recorded in 2005. Further information on Net Prior Year Development for 2006 and 2005 is included in Note F of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

During 2006 and 2005, we commuted several significant reinsurance contracts that resulted in unfavorable development of $110 million and $433 million, which is included in the development above, and which were partially offset by the release of previously established allowance for uncollectible reinsurance. These commutations resulted in an unfavorable impact of $31 million after-tax and $259 million after-tax in 2006 and 2005. These contracts contained interest crediting provisions and maintenance charges. Interest charges associated with the reinsurance contracts commuted were $9 million after-tax and $55 million after-tax in 2006 and 2005. The 2005 amount includes the interest charges associated with the contract commuted in 2006. There will be no further interest crediting charges or other charges related to these commuted contracts in future periods.

Net earned premiums increased $34 million in 2006 as compared with 2005, including an $80 million increase related to the Specialty Lines segment and a $3 million increase related to the Standard Lines segment. Net earned premiums for the Life and Group Non-Core segment decreased $63 million. See the Segment Results section of this MD&A for further discussion.

Loss from discontinued operations was $29 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. Results in 2006 reflect a $29 million impairment loss on the anticipated sale of a portion of the run-off business. Further information on this impairment loss is included in Note Q of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8. Also, the 2006 results were impacted by an increase in unallocated loss adjustment expense reserves and bad debt provision for reinsurance receivables. These items were partially offset by the release of tax reserves and net investment income.

2005 Compared with 2004

Net income decreased $161 million in 2005 as compared with 2004, due to decreased net operating income partially offset by improved net investment results. See the Investments section of this MD&A for further discussion of net investment results.

Net operating income from continuing operations decreased $346 million in 2005 as compared with 2004. This decrease in net operating income was primarily driven by increased unfavorable net prior year development of $437 million after-tax which includes the impact of significant commutations in 2005 and 2004, decreased earned premiums, and increased catastrophe impacts in 2005. Partially offsetting these impacts were increased net investment income, a $115 million after-tax benefit related to a federal income tax settlement and release of federal income tax reserves, and lower insurance acquisition and operating expenses.

Unfavorable net prior year development of $807 million was recorded in 2005, including $945 million of unfavorable claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserve development and $138 million of favorable premium development. Unfavorable net prior year development of $134 million, including $250 million of unfavorable claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserve development and $116 million of favorable premium development, was recorded in 2004. Further information on Net Prior Year Development for 2005 and 2004 is included in Note F of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

During 2005 and 2004, we commuted several significant reinsurance contracts that resulted in unfavorable development of $433 million and $76 million, which is included in the development above, and which was partially offset by the release of previously established allowance for uncollectible reinsurance. These commutations resulted in an unfavorable impact of $259 million after-tax and favorable impact of $18 million after-tax in 2005 and 2004. These contracts contained interest crediting provisions and maintenance charges. Interest charges associated with the reinsurance contracts commuted were $47 million after-tax and $86 million after-tax in 2005 and 2004. There will be no further interest crediting charges or other charges related to these commuted contracts in future periods.

Unfavorable net prior year development was also recorded related to our assumed reinsurance operations which are in run-off, workers’ compensation and excess workers’ compensation lines, primarily in accident years 2003 and prior, the architects and engineers book of business, pollution exposures and large directors and officers (D&O) claims.

The impact of catastrophes was $334 million after-tax and $196 million after-tax in 2005 and 2004. This increase was primarily due to 2005 catastrophe impacts resulting from Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Rita, Dennis and Ophelia and 2004 catastrophe impacts primarily resulting from Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne. These impacts are net of anticipated reinsurance recoveries, and include the effect of reinstatement premiums and estimated insurance assessments.

Net realized investment results, after-tax, improved $143 million in 2005 as compared with 2004. Net results in 2004 included a loss on the sale of the individual life insurance business of $389 million after-tax, which was partly offset by the 2004 gain of $105 million after-tax on the sale of our investment in Canary Wharf Group PLC (Canary Wharf), a London-based real estate company.

Net earned premiums decreased $640 million in 2005 as compared with 2004. Net earned premiums from the core property and casualty operations decreased by $309 million, as discussed in more detail in the segment discussions below. The remainder of the decrease in earned premiums was primarily due to the sale of the individual life business on April 30, 2004, as well as decreased premiums from CNA Re which exited the reinsurance market in 2003.

Income from discontinued operations increased $42 million in 2005 as compared to 2004, primarily due to a decrease in unfavorable net prior year development, including the effects of commutations of assumed and ceded reinsurance, increased foreign exchange gains and improved investment results primarily related to realized investment gains.

Critical Accounting Estimates

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

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

The accounting estimates discussed below are considered by us to be critical to an understanding of our Consolidated Financial Statements as their application places the most significant demands on our judgment. Note A of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 should be read in conjunction with this section to assist with obtaining an understanding of the underlying accounting policies related to these estimates. Due to the inherent uncertainties involved with these types of judgments, actual results could differ significantly from estimates and may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and/or equity.

Insurance Reserves

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

Reinsurance

Amounts recoverable from reinsurers are estimated in a manner consistent with claim and claim adjustment expense reserves or future policy benefits reserves and are reported as receivables in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The ceding of insurance does not discharge us of our primary liability under insurance contracts written by us. An exposure exists with respect to property and casualty and life reinsurance ceded to the extent that any reinsurer is unable to meet its obligations or disputes the liabilities assumed under reinsurance agreements. An estimated allowance for doubtful accounts is recorded on the basis of periodic evaluations of balances due from reinsurers, reinsurer solvency, our past experience and current economic conditions.

Reinsurance accounting allows for contractual cash flows to be reflected as premiums and losses, as compared to deposit accounting, which requires cash flows to be reflected as assets and liabilities. To qualify for reinsurance accounting, reinsurance agreements must include risk transfer. Considerable judgment by management may be necessary to determine if risk transfer requirements are met. We believe we have appropriately applied reinsurance accounting principles in our evaluation of risk transfer. However, our evaluation of risk transfer and the resulting accounting could be challenged in connection with regulatory reviews or possible changes in accounting and/or financial reporting rules related to reinsurance, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and/or equity. Further information on our reinsurance program is included in the Reinsurance section below and Note H of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Valuation of Investments and Impairment of Securities

Invested assets are exposed to various risks, such as interest rate, market and credit risks. Due to the level of risk associated with certain invested assets and the level of uncertainty related to changes in the value of these assets, it is possible that changes in risks in the near term could have an adverse material impact on our results of operations or equity.

Our investment portfolio is subject to market declines below book value that may be other-than-temporary. We have an Impairment Committee, which reviews the investment portfolio on a quarterly basis, with ongoing analysis as new information becomes available. Any decline that is determined to be other-than-temporary is recorded as an other-than-temporary impairment loss in the results of operations in the period in which the determination occurred. Further information on our process for evaluating impairments is included in Note B of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Long Term Care Products

Reserves and deferred acquisition costs for our long term care products are based on certain assumptions including morbidity, policy persistency and interest rates. The recoverability of deferred acquisition costs and the adequacy of the reserves are contingent on actual experience related to these key assumptions and other factors such as future health care cost trends. If actual experience differs from these assumptions, the deferred acquisition costs may not be fully recovered and the reserves may not be adequate, requiring us to add to reserves, or take unfavorable development. Therefore, our financial results could be adversely impacted.

Pension and Postretirement Benefit Obligations

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

In determining the discount rate assumption, we utilized current market information, including a discounted cash flow analysis of our pension and postretirement obligations and general movements in the current market environment. In particular, the basis for our discount rate selection was fixed income debt securities that receive one of the two highest ratings given by a recognized rating agency. In 2006 and historically, the Moody’s Aa Corporate Bond Index was the benchmark for discount rate selection. The index is used as the basis for the change in discount rate from the last measurement date. Additionally, we have supplemented our discount rate decision with a yield curve analysis. The yield curve was applied to expected future retirement plan payments to adjust the discount rate to reflect the cash flow characteristics of the plans. The yield curve is a hypothetical double A yield curve represented by a series of annualized discount rates reflecting bond issues having a rating of Aa or better by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or a rating of AA or better by Standard & Poor’s. Based on all available information, it was determined that 5.750% and 5.625% were the appropriate discount rates as of December 31, 2006 to calculate our accrued pension and postretirement liabilities, respectively. Accordingly, the 5.750% and 5.625% rates will also be used to determine our 2007 pension and postretirement expense. At December 31, 2005, the discount rates used to calculate our accrued pension and postretirement liabilities were 5.625% and 5.500% respectively.

Further information on our pension and postretirement benefit obligations is included in Note J of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Legal Proceedings

We are involved in various legal proceedings that have arisen during the ordinary course of business. We evaluate the facts and circumstances of each situation, and when we determine it is necessary, a liability is estimated and recorded. Further information on our legal proceedings and related contingent liabilities is provided in Notes F and G of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Reserves - Estimates and Uncertainties

We maintain reserves to cover our estimated ultimate unpaid liability for claim and claim adjustment expenses, including the estimated cost of the claims adjudication process, for claims that have been reported but not yet settled

(case reserves) and claims that have been incurred but not reported (IBNR). Claim and claim adjustment expense reserves are reflected as liabilities and are included on the Consolidated Balance Sheets under the heading “Insurance Reserves.” Adjustments to prior year reserve estimates, if necessary, are reflected in the results of operations in the period that the need for such adjustments is determined. The carried case and IBNR reserves are provided in the Segment Results section of this MD&A and in Note F of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

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

Our experience has been that establishing reserves for casualty coverages relating to asbestos, environmental pollution and mass tort (APMT) claim and claim adjustment expenses is subject to uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other claims. Estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and unreported APMT claims is subject to a higher degree of variability due to a number of additional factors, including among others:

•		coverage issues, including whether certain costs are covered under the policies and whether policy limits apply;
•		inconsistent court decisions and developing legal theories;
•		continuing aggressive tactics of plaintiffs’ lawyers;
•		the risks and lack of predictability inherent in major litigation;
•		changes in the volume of APMT claims which cannot now be anticipated;
•		the impact of the exhaustion of primary limits and the resulting increase in claims on any umbrella or excess policies we have issued;
•		the number and outcome of direct actions against us; and
•		our ability to recover reinsurance for APMT claims.

It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and legislative environment and the impact on the future development of APMT claims. This development will be affected by future court decisions and interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation. It is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of large coverage disputes until settlement negotiations near completion and significant legal questions are resolved or, failing settlement, until the dispute is adjudicated. This is particularly the case with policyholders in bankruptcy where negotiations often involve a large number of claimants and other parties and require court approval to be effective. A further uncertainty exists as to whether a national privately financed trust to replace litigation of asbestos claims with payments to claimants from the trust will be established and approved through federal legislation, and, if established and approved, whether it will contain funding requirements in excess of our carried loss reserves.

Traditional actuarial methods and techniques employed to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional property and casualty exposures are less precise in estimating claim and claim adjustment reserves for APMT, particularly in an environment of emerging or potential claims and coverage issues that arise from industry practices and legal, judicial and social conditions. Therefore, these traditional actuarial methods and techniques are necessarily supplemented with additional estimation techniques and methodologies, many of which involve significant judgments that are required of management. For APMT, we regularly monitor our exposures, including reviews of loss activity, regulatory developments and court rulings. In addition, we perform a comprehensive ground up analysis on our exposures annually. Our actuaries, in conjunction with our specialized claim unit, use various modeling techniques to estimate our overall exposure to known accounts. We use this information and additional modeling techniques to develop loss distributions and claim reporting patterns to determine reserves for accounts that will report APMT exposure in the future. Estimating the average claim size requires analysis of the impact of large losses and claim cost trend based on changes in the cost of repairing or replacing property, changes in the cost of legal fees, judicial decisions, legislative changes, and other factors. Due to the inherent uncertainties in estimating reserves for APMT claim and claim adjustment expenses and the degree of variability due to, among other things, the factors described above, we may be required to record material changes in our claim and claim adjustment expense reserves in the future, should new information become available or other developments emerge.

See the APMT Reserves section of this MD&A and Note F of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 for additional information relating to APMT claims and reserves.

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

•		increases in the number and size of claims relating to injuries from medical products;
•		the effects of accounting and financial reporting scandals and other major corporate governance failures, which have resulted in an increase in the number and size of claims, including director and officer and errors and omissions insurance claims;
•		class action litigation relating to claims handling and other practices;
•		construction defect claims, including claims for a broad range of additional insured endorsements on policies;
•		clergy abuse claims, including passage of legislation to reopen or extend various statutes of limitations; and
•		mass tort claims, including bodily injury claims related to silica, welding rods, benzene, lead and various other chemical exposure claims.

The impact of these and other unforeseen emerging or potential claims and coverage issues is difficult to predict and could materially adversely affect the adequacy of our claim and claim adjustment expense reserves and could lead to future reserve additions. See the Segment Results sections of this MD&A and Note F of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 for a discussion of changes in reserve estimates and the impact on our results of operations.

Establishing Reserve Estimates

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

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

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

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

•		Paid Development,
•		Incurred Development,

•		Loss Ratio,
•		Bornhuetter-Ferguson Using Premiums and Paid Loss,
•		Bornhuetter-Ferguson Using Premiums and Incurred Loss, and
•		Average Loss.

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

For many products, paid loss data for recent periods may be too immature or erratic for accurate predictions. This situation often exists for long-tail exposures. In addition, changes in the factors described above may result in inconsistent payment patterns. Finally, estimating the paid loss pattern subsequent to the most mature point available in the data analyzed often involves considerable uncertainty for long-tail products such as workers’ compensation.

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

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

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

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

The average loss method multiplies a projected number of ultimate claims by an estimated ultimate average loss for each accident year to produce ultimate loss estimates. Since projections of the ultimate number of claims are often less variable than projections of ultimate loss, this method can provide more reliable results for products where loss development patterns are inconsistent or too variable to be relied on exclusively. In addition, this method can more directly account for changes in coverage that impact the number and size of claims. However, this method can be difficult to apply to situations where very large claims or a substantial number of unusual claims result in volatile average claim sizes. Projecting the ultimate number of claims requires analysis of several factors including the rate

at which policyholders report claims to us, the impact of judicial decisions, the impact of underwriting changes and other factors. Estimating the ultimate average loss requires analysis of the impact of large losses and claim cost trend based on changes in the cost of repairing or replacing property, changes in the cost of medical care, changes in the cost of wage replacement, judicial decisions, legislative changes and other factors.

For other more complex products where the above methods may not produce reliable indications, we use additional methods tailored to the characteristics of the specific situation. Such products include construction defect losses and APMT.

For construction defect losses, our actuaries organize losses by report year. Report year groups claims by the year in which they were reported. To estimate losses from claims that have not been reported, various extrapolation techniques are applied to the pattern of claims that have been reported to estimate the number of claims yet to be reported. This process requires analysis of several factors including the rate at which policyholders report claims to us, the impact of judicial decisions, the impact of underwriting changes and other factors. An average claim size is determined from past experience and applied to the number of unreported claims to estimate reserves for these claims.

For many exposures, especially those that can be considered long-tail, a particular accident year may not have a sufficient volume of paid losses to produce a statistically reliable estimate of ultimate losses. In such a case, our actuaries typically assign more weight to the incurred development method than to the paid development method. As claims continue to settle and the volume of paid loss increases, the actuaries may assign additional weight to the paid development method. For most of our products, even the incurred losses for accident years that are early in the claim settlement process will not be of sufficient volume to produce a reliable estimate of ultimate losses. In these cases, we will not assign any weight to the paid and incurred development methods. We will use loss ratio, Bornhuetter-Ferguson and average loss methods. For short-tail exposures, the paid and incurred development methods can often be relied on sooner primarily because our history includes a sufficient number of years to cover the entire period over which paid and incurred losses are expected to change. However, we may also use loss ratio, Bornhuetter-Ferguson and average loss methods for short-tail exposures.

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

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

Currently, our reserves are slightly higher than the actuarial point estimate. We do not establish a specific provision for uncertainty. For Standard and Specialty Lines, the difference between our reserves and the actuarial point estimate is due to the two most recent complete accident years. The claim data from these accident years is very immature. We believe it is prudent to wait until actual experience confirms that the loss reserves should be adjusted. For Corporate and Other Non-Core, the carried reserve is slightly higher than the actuarial point estimate. While the actuarial estimates for APMT exposures reflect current knowledge, we feel it is prudent, based on the history of developments in this area, to reflect some margin in the carried reserve until the ultimate outcome of the issues associated with these exposures is clearer.

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

As a result, the effect on reserve estimates of a particular change in assumptions usually cannot be specifically quantified, and changes in these assumptions cannot be tracked over time.

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

Within Standard Lines, the two types of business for which we believe a material deviation to our net reserves is reasonably possible are workers’ compensation and general liability.

For Standard Lines workers’ compensation, since many years will pass from the time the business is written until all claim payments have been made, claim cost inflation on claim payments is the most significant factor affecting workers’ compensation reserve estimates. Workers’ compensation claim cost inflation is driven by the cost of medical care, the cost of wage replacement, expected claimant lifetimes, judicial decisions, legislative changes and other factors. If estimated workers’ compensation claim cost inflation increases by one point for the entire period over which claim payments will be made, we estimate that our net reserves would increase by approximately $500 million. If estimated workers’ compensation claim cost inflation decreases by one point for the entire period over which claim payments will be made, we estimate that our net reserves would decrease by approximately $450 million. Our net reserves for Standard Lines workers’ compensation were approximately $4.4 billion at December 31, 2006.

For Standard Lines general liability, the predominant method used for estimating reserves is the incurred development method. Changes in the cost to repair or replace property, the cost of medical care, the cost of wage replacement, judicial decisions, legislation and other factors all impact the pattern selected in this method. The pattern selected results in the incurred development factor that estimates future changes in case incurred loss. If the estimated incurred development factor for general liability increases by 15%, we estimate that our net reserves would increase by approximately $370 million. If the estimated incurred development factor for general liability decreases by 13%, we estimate that our net reserves would decrease by approximately $320 million. Our net reserves for Standard Lines general liability were approximately $4.0 billion at December 31, 2006.

Within Specialty Lines, we believe a material deviation to our net reserves is reasonably possible for the US Specialty Lines group. This group provides professional liability coverages to various professional firms, including architects, realtors, small and mid-sized accounting firms, law firms and technology firms. US Specialty Lines also provide D&O, employment practices, fiduciary and fidelity coverages. US Specialty Lines also offers insurance products to serve the healthcare delivery system. The most significant factor affecting US Specialty Lines reserve estimates is claim severity. Claim severity for US Specialty Lines is driven by the cost of medical care, the cost of wage replacement, legal fees, judicial decisions, legislation and other factors. Underwriting and claim handling decisions such as the classes of business written and individual claim settlement decisions can also impact claim severity. If the estimated claim severity for US Specialty Lines increases by 7%, we estimate that US Specialty Lines net reserves would increase by approximately $270 million. If the estimated claim severity for US Specialty Lines decreases by 3%, we estimate that US Specialty net reserves would decrease by approximately $110 million. Our net reserves for US Specialty Lines were approximately $3.9 billion at December 31, 2006.

Within Corporate and Other Non-Core, the two types of business for which we believe a material deviation to our net reserves is reasonably possible are CNA Re and APMT.

For CNA Re, the predominant method used for estimating reserves is the incurred development method. Changes in the cost to repair or replace property, the cost of medical care, the cost of wage replacement, the rate at which ceding companies report claims, judicial decisions, legislation and other factors all impact the incurred development pattern for CNA Re. The pattern selected results in the incurred development factor that estimates future changes in case incurred loss. If the estimated incurred development factor for CNA Re increases by 21%, we estimate that our net reserves for CNA Re would increase by approximately $150 million. If the estimated incurred development factor for CNA Re decreases by 21%, we estimate that our net reserves would decrease by approximately $150 million. Our net reserves for CNA Re were approximately $1.2 billion at December 31, 2006.

For APMT, the most significant factor affecting reserve estimates is overall account size trend. Overall account size trend for APMT reflects the combined impact of economic trends (inflation), changes in the types of defendants involved, the expected mix of asbestos disease types, judicial decisions, legislation and other factors. If the estimated overall account size trend for APMT increases by 4 points, we estimate that our APMT net reserves would increase by approximately $700 million. If the estimated overall account size trend for APMT decreases by 4 points, we estimate that our APMT net reserves would decrease by approximately $400 million. Our net reserves for APMT were approximately $1.9 billion at December 31, 2006.

Given the factors described above, it is not possible to quantify precisely the ultimate exposure represented by claims and related litigation. As a result, we regularly review the adequacy of our reserves and reassess our reserve estimates as historical loss experience develops, additional claims are reported and settled and additional information becomes available in subsequent periods.

In light of the many uncertainties associated with establishing the estimates and making the assumptions necessary to establish reserve levels, we review our reserve estimates on a regular basis and make adjustments in the period that the need for such adjustments is determined. These reviews have resulted in our identification of information and trends that have caused us to increase our reserves in prior periods and could lead to the identification of a need for additional material increases in claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations, equity, business and insurer financial strength and debt ratings. See the Ratings section of this MD&A for further information regarding our financial strength and debt ratings.

Reinsurance

Due to significant catastrophes during 2005, the cost of our catastrophe reinsurance program has increased. Our catastrophe reinsurance protection cost us premiums of approximately $64 million in 2005, including reinstatement premiums and cost us approximately $79 million in 2006, which did not include any reinstatement premiums. During 2007, our catastrophe reinsurance program will cost us $89 million before the impact of any reinstatement premiums.

The terms of our 2007 catastrophe programs are different than those of our 2006 programs. The Corporate Property Catastrophe treaty provides coverage for the accumulation of losses between $300 million and $1 billion arising out of a single catastrophe occurrence in the United States, its territories and possessions, and Canada. Our co-participation is 50% of the first $100 million layer and 10% of the remaining layer. In addition, we previously purchased an aggregate property catastrophe treaty to obtain reinsurance protection against the aggregation of losses from multiple catastrophic events. We did not purchase an aggregate property catastrophe treaty for 2007.

In certain circumstances, including significant deterioration of a reinsurer’s financial strength ratings, we may engage in commutation discussions with individual reinsurers. The outcome of such discussions may result in a lump sum settlement that is less than the recorded receivable, net of any applicable allowance for doubtful accounts. Losses arising from commutations could have an adverse material impact on our results of operations.

In 2001, we entered into a one-year corporate aggregate reinsurance treaty related to the 2001 accident year covering substantially all property and casualty lines of business in the Continental Casualty Company pool (the CCC Cover). The CCC Cover was fully utilized in 2003. In 2006, we commuted our CCC Cover. This commutation had no impact on the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Also, in 2006, we commuted several reinsurance treaties, including several finite treaties, with a European reinsurance group. This commutation resulted in a pretax loss, net of allowance for uncollectible reinsurance, of $48 million. We received $35 million of cash in connection with this significant commutation.

As of December 31, 2006 and 2005, there were one and thirteen ceded reinsurance treaties inforce respectively that we consider to be finite reinsurance. In 2003, we discontinued purchases of such contracts. The remaining treaty at December 31, 2006 provides reinsurance protection for the 1999 accident year on specified portions of our domestic property and casualty business and is fully utilized. Therefore, we do not expect to cede any additional losses under finite reinsurance contracts in future periods nor incur interest costs.

Further information on our reinsurance program is included in Note H of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

Terrorism Insurance

We and the insurance industry incurred substantial losses related to the 2001 World Trade Center event. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) established a program within the Department of the Treasury under which insurers are required to offer terrorism insurance and the federal government will share the risk of loss by commercial property and casualty insurers arising from future terrorist attacks. Although TRIA expired on December 31, 2005, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (TRIEA) extended this program through December 31, 2007 with changes such as the lines of business covered, the deductible amount that must be paid by the insurance company and the aggregate industry loss prior to federal government assistance becoming available.

While TRIEA provides the property and casualty industry with an increased ability to withstand the effect of a terrorist event through 2007, given the unpredictability of the nature, targets, severity or frequency of potential terrorist events, our results of operations or equity could nevertheless be materially adversely impacted by them. We are attempting to mitigate this exposure through our underwriting practices, as well as policy terms and conditions (where applicable). Under the laws of certain states, we are generally prohibited from excluding terrorism exposure from our primary workers’ compensation policies. Further, in those states that mandate property insurance coverage of damage from fire following a loss, we are prohibited from excluding terrorism exposure.

Over the past several years, we have been underwriting our business to manage our terrorism exposure through strict underwriting standards, risk avoidance measures and conditional terrorism exclusions where permitted by law. There is substantial uncertainty as to our ability to effectively contain our terrorism exposure since, notwithstanding our efforts described above, we continue to issue forms of coverage, in particular, workers’ compensation, that are exposed to risk of loss from a terrorism event.

Restructuring

In 2001, we finalized and approved a plan related to restructuring the property and casualty segments and Life and Group Non-Core segment, discontinuation of the variable life and annuity business and consolidation of real estate locations. During 2006, we reevaluated the sufficiency of the remaining accrual, which related to lease termination costs, and determined that the liability is no longer required as we have completed our lease obligations. As a result, the excess remaining accrual was released in 2006, resulting in income of $8 million after-tax for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Further information on the restructuring plan is included in Note O of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

SEGMENT RESULTS

The following discusses the results of continuing operations for our operating segments. We utilize the net operating income financial measure to monitor our operations. Net operating income is calculated by excluding from net income the after-tax effects of 1) net realized investment gains or losses, 2) income or loss from discontinued operations and 3) cumulative effects of changes in accounting principles. See further discussion regarding how we manage our business in Note N of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8. In evaluating the results of the Standard Lines and Specialty Lines, we utilize the combined ratio, the loss ratio, the expense ratio and the dividend ratio. These ratios are calculated using GAAP financial results. The loss ratio is the percentage of net incurred claim and claim adjustment expenses to net earned premiums. The expense ratio is the percentage of insurance underwriting and acquisition expenses, including the amortization of deferred acquisition costs, to net earned premiums. The dividend ratio is the ratio of policyholders’ dividends incurred to net earned premiums. The combined ratio is the sum of the loss, expense and dividend ratios.

STANDARD LINES

Business Overview

Standard Lines works with an independent agency distribution system and network of brokers to market a broad range of property and casualty insurance products and services to small, middle-market and large businesses

domestically and abroad. The Standard Lines operating model focuses on underwriting performance, relationships with selected distribution sources and understanding customer needs.

Standard Lines includes Property, Casualty and CNA Global.

Property provides standard and excess property coverage, as well as marine coverage and boiler and machinery to a wide range of businesses.

Casualty provides standard casualty insurance products such as workers’ compensation, general and product liability and commercial auto coverage through traditional products to a wide range of businesses. Most insurance programs are provided on a guaranteed cost basis; however, Casualty has the capability to offer specialized, loss-sensitive insurance programs to those customers viewed as higher risk and less predictable in exposure.

Excess & Surplus (E&S) is included in Casualty. E&S provides specialized insurance and other financial products for selected commercial risks on both an individual customer and program basis. Customers insured by E&S are generally viewed as higher risk and less predictable in exposure than those covered by standard insurance markets. E&S’s products are distributed throughout the United States through specialist producers, program agents and Property and Casualty’s agents and brokers.

Property and Casualty’s (P&C) field structure consists of 33 branch locations across the country organized into 4 regions. Each branch provides the marketing, underwriting and risk control expertise on the entire portfolio of products. The Centralized Processing Operation for small and middle-market customers, located in Maitland, Florida, handles policy processing and accounting, and also acts as a call center to optimize customer service. The claims structure consists of a centralized claim center designed to efficiently handle property damage and medical only claims and 18 claim office locations around the country handling the more complex claims. Also, Standard Lines provides total risk management services relating to claim and information services to the large commercial insurance marketplace, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, ClaimsPlus, Inc., a third party administrator.

CNA Global consists of subsidiaries operating in Europe, Latin America, Canada and Hawaii. These affiliates offer property and casualty insurance to small and medium size businesses and capitalize on strategic indigenous opportunities.

The following table details results of operations for Standard Lines.

Results of Operations

Years ended December 31		2006				2005				2004
(In millions)
Net written premiums		$	4,433			$	4,382			$	4,582
Net earned premiums			4,413				4,410				4,917
Net investment income			991				767				496
Net operating income (loss)			617				(41	)			220
Net realized investment gains, after-tax			55				9				139
Net income (loss)			672				(32	)			359
Ratios
Loss and loss adjustment expense			70.1	%			87.5	%			70.8	%
Expense			31.1				32.4				34.6
Dividend			0.4				0.4				0.2
Combined			101.6	%			120.3	%			105.6	%

2006 Compared with 2005

Net written premiums for Standard Lines increased $51 million in 2006 as compared with 2005. This increase was primarily driven by favorable new business, rate and retention in the Property lines of business. Net earned premiums increased $3 million in 2006 as compared with 2005. Net earned premiums were impacted by decreased favorable premium development in 2006 as compared to 2005, as discussed below. We continue to focus on portfolio optimization.

Standard Lines averaged flat rates for 2006, as compared to average rate decreases of 1% for 2005 for the contracts that renewed during those periods. Retention rates of 81% and 77% were achieved for those contracts that were up for renewal in each period.

Net results increased $704 million in 2006 as compared with 2005. This increase was attributable to increases in net operating results and net realized investment gains. See the Investments section of this MD&A for further discussion of net investment income and net realized investment gains.

Net operating results increased $658 million in 2006 as compared with 2005. This increase was primarily driven by significantly reduced catastrophe losses in 2006, an increase in net investment income and a decrease in unfavorable net prior year development as discussed below. The 2006 net operating results included catastrophe impacts of $31 million after-tax. The 2005 net operating results included catastrophe impacts of $318 million after-tax related to Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Rita, Dennis and Ophelia, net of reinsurance recoveries.

The combined ratio improved 18.7 points in 2006 as compared with 2005. The loss ratio improved 17.4 points due to decreased unfavorable net prior year development as discussed below and decreased catastrophe losses in 2006. The 2006 and 2005 loss ratios included 1.3 and 11.1 points related to the impact of catastrophes.

The expense ratio improved 1.3 points in 2006 as compared with 2005. This improvement was primarily due to a decrease in the provision for insurance bad debt. In addition, the 2005 ratio included increased ceded commissions as a result of an unfavorable arbitration ruling related to two reinsurance treaties. Changes in estimates for premium taxes partially offset these favorable impacts.

Unfavorable net prior year development of $69 million was recorded in 2006, including $157 million of unfavorable claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserve development and $88 million of favorable premium development. Unfavorable net prior year development of $452 million, including $559 million of unfavorable claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserve development and $107 million of favorable premium development, was recorded in 2005. Further information on Standard Lines Net Prior Year Development for 2006 and 2005 is included in Note F of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

During 2006 and 2005, we commuted several significant reinsurance contracts that resulted in unfavorable development of $110 million and $285 million, which is included in the development above, and which was partially offset by the release of previously established allowance for uncollectible reinsurance. These commutations resulted in an unfavorable after-tax impact of $31 million and $173 million in 2006 and 2005. Several of the commuted contracts contained interest crediting provisions. The interest charges associated with the reinsurance contracts commuted were $9 million after-tax and $35 million after-tax in 2006 and 2005. The 2005 amount includes the interest charges associated with the contract commuted in 2006. There will be no further interest crediting charges related to these commuted contracts in future periods.

The following table summarizes the gross and net carried reserves as of December 31, 2006 and 2005 for Standard Lines.

Gross and Net Carried
Claim and Claim Adjustment Expense Reserves

December 31		2006				2005
(In millions)
Gross Case Reserves		$	6,746			$	7,033
Gross IBNR Reserves			8,188				8,051
Total Gross Carried Claim and Claim Adjustment Expense Reserves		$	14,934			$	15,084
Net Case Reserves		$	5,234			$	5,165
Net IBNR Reserves			6,632				6,081
Total Net Carried Claim and Claim Adjustment Expense Reserves		$	11,866			$	11,246

2005 Compared with 2004

Net written premiums for Standard Lines decreased $200 million in 2005 as compared with 2004. This decrease was primarily driven by decreased premium writings in our casualty lines of business, increased reinstatement

premium in 2005 related to catastrophe losses and decreased rates as discussed further below. Net earned premiums decreased $507 million in 2005 as compared with 2004. This decrease was primarily driven by the decline in premiums written. The lower premium is consistent with our strategy of portfolio optimization. Our priority is a diversified portfolio in profitable classes of business.

Standard Lines averaged rate decreases of 1% for 2005, as compared to average rate increases of 4% for 2004 for the contracts that renewed during those periods. Retention rates of 77% and 70% were achieved for those contracts that were up for renewal in each period.

Net results decreased $391 million in 2005 as compared with 2004. This decrease was attributable to declines in both net operating results and net realized investment results. See the Investments section of this MD&A for further discussion of net investment income and net realized investment results.

Net operating results decreased $261 million in 2005 as compared with 2004. This decrease was due primarily to increased unfavorable net prior year development of $282 million after-tax including $185 million after-tax related to significant commutations in 2005, a $135 million after-tax increase in catastrophe losses, the decreased earned premium as discussed above and decreased current accident year results. These unfavorable items were partially offset by a $271 million increase in net investment income and a decrease in the provision for insurance bad debt.

Unfavorable net prior year development of $452 million was recorded in 2005, including $559 million of unfavorable claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserve development and $107 million of favorable premium development. Unfavorable net prior year development of $18 million, including $115 million of unfavorable claim and allocated claim adjustment expense reserve development and $97 million of favorable premium development, was recorded in 2004. Further information on Standard Lines Net Prior Year Development for 2005 and 2004 is included in Note F of the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8.

During 2005 and 2004, we commuted several significant reinsurance contracts that resulted in unfavorable development of $285 million and $5 million, which is included in the development above, and which was partially offset by the release of previously established allowance for uncollectible reinsurance. These commutations resulted in an unfavorable impact of $173 million after-tax and favorable impact of $4 million after-tax in 2005 and 2004. These contracts contained interest crediting provisions. The interest charges associated with the reinsurance contracts commuted were $42 million and $110 million in 2005 and 2004. There will be no further interest crediting charges related to these commuted contracts in future periods.

The impact of catastrophes was $318 million after-tax and $183 million after-tax for 2005 and 2004, net of anticipated reinsurance recoveries.

The combined ratio increased 14.7 points in 2005 as compared with 2004. The loss ratio increased 16.7 points in 2005 as compared with 2004. These increases were primarily due to increased net prior year development, increased catastrophe losses and decreased current accident year results. Catastrophe losses of $470 million and $260 million were recorded in 2005 and 2004.

The expense ratio improved 2.2 points in 2005 as compared with 2004. This improvement was primarily due to a decrease in the provision for insurance bad debt.

The dividend ratio increased 0.2 points in 2005 as compared with 2004. The 2004 ratio was impacted by favorable dividend development, partially offset by decreased participation in dividend plans and lower dividend amounts related to the current accident year.

SPECIALTY LINES

Business Overview

Specialty Lines provides professional, financial and specialty property and casualty products and services through a network of brokers, managing general underwriters and independent agencies. Specialty Lines provides solutions for managing the risks of its clients, including architects, lawyers, accountants, healthcare professionals, financial intermediaries and public and private corporations. Product offerings also include surety and fidelity bonds and vehicle and equipment warranty services.

Specialty Lines includes the following business groups: US Specialty Lines, Surety and Warranty.

US Specialty Lines provides management and professional liability insurance and risk management services, primarily in the United States. This group provides professional liability coverages to various professional firms, including architects, realtors, small and mid-sized accounting firms, law firms and technology firms. US Specialty Lines also provides directors and officers (D&O), employment practices, fiduciary and fidelity coverages. Specific areas of focus include small and mid-size firms as well as privately held firms and not-for-profit organizations where tailored products for this client segment are offered. Products within US Specialty Lines are distributed through brokers, agents and managing general underwriters.

US Specialty Lines, through CNA HealthPro, also offers insurance products to serve the healthcare delivery system. Products, which include professional liability as well as associated standard property and casualty coverages, are distributed on a national basis through a variety of channels including brokers, agents and managing general underwriters. Key customer segments include long term care facilities, allied healthcare providers, life sciences, dental professionals and mid-size and large healthcare facilities and delivery systems.

Surety consists primarily of CNA Surety and its insurance subsidiaries and offers small, medium and large contract and commercial surety bonds. CNA Surety provides surety and fidelity bonds in all 50 states through a combined network of independent agencies. CNA owns approximately 63% of CNA Surety.

Warranty provides vehicle warranty service contracts that protect individuals and businesses from the financial burden associated with mechanical breakdown or maintenance.

The following table details results of operations for Specialty Lines.

Results of Operations

Years ended December 31		2006				2005				2004
(In millions)
Net written premiums		$	2,596			$	2,463			$	2,391
Net earned premiums			2,555				2,475				2,277
Net investment income			403				281				246
Net operating income			464				336				324
Net realized investment gains, after-tax			18				12				54
Net income			482				348				378
Ratios
Loss and loss adjustment expense			60.5	%			65.3	%			63.3	%
Expense			26.7				26.1				26.1
Dividend			0.2				0.2				0.2
Combined			87.4	%			91.6	%			89.6	%