Regulatory bodies, such as state insurance departments, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, tax authorities and other regulatory bodies regularly make inquiries and conduct examinations, investigations or audits concerning our compliance with, among other things, insurance laws, securities laws, tax laws, laws governing the activities of broker-dealers and registered investment advisers and unclaimed property laws. Tax-related matters can include disputes with taxing authorities, ongoing audits, evaluation of filing positions and any potential assessments related thereto.

LNL and its affiliates are involved in various pending or threatened legal or regulatory proceedings, including purported class actions, arising from the conduct of business both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding verdicts obtained in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experiences of LNL in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

Due to the unpredictable nature of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is normally difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects two types of matters. For some matters included within this estimate, an accrual has been made, but there is a reasonable possibility that an exposure exists in excess of the amount accrued. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amount. For other matters included within this estimation, no accrual has been made because a loss, while potentially estimable, is believed to be reasonably possible but not probable. In these cases, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. As of December 31, 2025, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, including amounts in excess of amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $150 million, after-tax. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or of the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure on such matters.

For other matters, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Among other matters, we are presently engaged in litigation, including relating to cost of insurance rates (“Cost of Insurance and Other Litigation”), as described below. No accrual has been made for some of these matters. Although a loss is believed to be reasonably possible for these matters, for some of these matters, we are not able to estimate a reasonably possible amount or range of potential liability. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters may have a material impact on the consolidated financial statements, but, based on information currently known, management does not believe those cases are likely to have such an impact.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. In response, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2023. On March 7, 2024, the parties entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses policies that are at issue in this case, which also includes all policies at issue in the lawsuits captioned TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, both of which are described below, and one additional case to which an affiliate of LNL is a party, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, which has been previously disclosed by our parent company, LNC. The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski). As of December 31, 2025, the total provisional settlement amount of $147.5 million, pre-tax, remains accrued.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above) entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuit captioned Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (discussed below), and one additional case to which an affiliate of LNL is a party, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, which has been previously disclosed by our parent company, LNC. The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the Glover provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski). A motion has been filed to stay the proceedings in this matter (as well as the Iwanski matter) pending the completion of the settlement approval process in Glover.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. On March 31, 2022, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified a class of all current or former owners of six universal life insurance products issued by LLANY that were assessed a cost of insurance charge any time on or after June 27, 2013. Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the class. On April 19, 2023, LLANY filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 7, 2024, the parties in Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above) entered into a provisional settlement agreement that encompasses all policies at issue in this case, as the Glover case is inclusive of all policies in this case, as well as in the lawsuit captioned TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (discussed above), and one additional case to which an affiliate of LNL is a party, Iwanski v. First Penn-Pacific Life Insurance Company, which has been previously disclosed by our parent company, LNC. The Glover plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the provisional settlement was filed on March 8, 2024, and on September 4, 2024, the court granted preliminary approval of the provisional settlement. On March 29, 2024, the court issued its summary judgment decision, granting LLANY’s motion in part and denying it in part, and entering summary judgment against twenty-two policyholders that the court determined were not economically harmed. On June 25, 2024, the court granted LLANY’s April 12, 2024, motion to stay proceedings in this matter pending the completion of the approval process in Glover. On December 16, 2024, the court heard oral argument on the issue of whether to grant final approval of the Glover provisional settlement. On June 16, 2025, the court granted final approval of the Glover provisional settlement and on June 18, 2025, entered final judgment and dismissed the case. On July 16, 2025, plaintiffs in the TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski cases appealed the final approval of the provisional settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The provisional settlement, which is subject to the outcome of the appeal, consists of a $147.5 million pre-tax cash payment for Glover class members (inclusive of all policyholders in TVPX ARS INC., Vida and Iwanski).

Angus v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:22-cv-01878, is a putative class action filed on May 13, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that defendant LNL breached the terms of her life insurance policy by deducting non-guaranteed cost of insurance charges in excess of what is permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life insurance policies issued or insured by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of plaintiff’s policy and seeks damages on their behalf. Breach of contract is the only cause of action asserted. On August 26, 2022, LNL filed a motion to dismiss. We are vigorously defending this matter.

EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 17-cv-02592-GJP (E.D. Pa.), filed on February 1, 2017; Brighton Trustees, LLC, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-2251-GJP (E.D. Pa.), filed on April 20, 2023 (and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 12, 2023); and Ryan K. Crayne, on behalf of and as trustee for Carlton Peak Trust v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 2:24-cv-00053-GJP, filed on November 17, 2023 (and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 4, 2024) are consolidated civil actions pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In each case other than Crayne, plaintiffs purport to own universal life insurance policies or interests in universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). In Crayne, plaintiffs purport to own litigation claims concerning universal life policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Among other things, plaintiffs in each case allege that LNL breached the terms of policyholders’ contracts when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016 (or, in Brighton Trustees, in 2016 and 2017). We are vigorously defending these consolidated matters.

Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, et al, filed in the District Court of the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, No. DC-23-02492, is a putative class action that was filed on February 22, 2023. Plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale, Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and Toni Hale (“Plaintiffs”) allege on behalf of a putative class that Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and LLANY (together, “Lincoln”), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product Services, LLC (“Fidelity”) created and marketed misleading and deceptive insurance products with attributes of investment products. The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who purchased Lincoln OptiBlend products that allocated account monies to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account, between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Plaintiffs assert the following claims individually and on behalf of the class, (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3) negligent misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4) aiding and abetting fraud against Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages from “a missed investment return of approximately 5-6%” and mitigation damages. They seek actual, consequential and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and litigation costs. On March 31, 2023, the Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal removing the action from the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending. We are vigorously defending this matter.

[The] Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. Plaintiffs Kelly Grink, Diane Trump and Steven Molnar are participants in Virtua Health’s defined contribution plans. Plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former participants or beneficiaries of Virtua’s 401(k) savings plan and 403(b) retirement program (together, the “Plans”) who invested in the Plans’ fixed annuity option in the six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Lincoln offers a fixed annuity investment option to plan participants through its group annuity contract with the Plans. Lincoln also provides recordkeeping and administration services to the Plans. Plaintiffs allege that the Virtua defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duty including by maintaining the Plans’ investment in the Lincoln stable value fund when other investment providers are alleged to have provided superior alternatives at substantially lower cost. Plaintiffs allege that the Lincoln defendants were at all relevant times fiduciaries to the Plans and were parties in interest to a prohibited transaction under ERISA. The action seeks relief against the Lincoln defendants including the disgorgement of any profits they received as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, together with plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other equitable or remedial relief as the court deems appropriate. On April 4, 2025, the Lincoln defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On December 3, 2025, the court granted the Lincoln defendants’ motion, dismissing the Lincoln defendants from the case without prejudice. On January 22, 2026, plaintiffs filed a consent motion to file a second amended complaint and did not include any Lincoln entities as defendants in this matter. Therefore, this matter is no longer pending against Lincoln.

Maria Laurino and Ricardo Miller v. The Valley Hospital and Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, et. al., No. 2:25-cv-15263, is a putative class action lawsuit filed on September 4, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs are participants in Valley Hospital Health System Partnership Plan (the “Plan”), which is the 401(k) defined contribution plan for The Valley Hospital and affiliated entities. Plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former participants and beneficiaries in the Plan since September 4, 2019. Lincoln offers a fixed annuity investment option to Plan participants through its group annuity contract with the Plan. Lincoln also provides recordkeeping and administration services to the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that The Valley Hospital defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duty, including by maintaining the Plan’s investment in the Lincoln stable value fund when other investment providers are alleged to have provided superior investment alternatives, and by participating in an alleged fiduciary breach by Lincoln. Plaintiffs allege that the Lincoln defendants were fiduciaries to the Plan and were parties in interest to a prohibited transaction under ERISA. The action seeks relief against the Lincoln defendants, including the disgorgement of profits, attorney’s fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other equitable or remedial relief as the court deems appropriate. On December 18, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and did not include any Lincoln entities as defendants in this matter. Therefore, this matter is no longer pending against Lincoln.

Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Township of Radnor, pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania Civil Division, No. 2022-001894, is a de novo appeal filed by LNL on March 21, 2022, regarding a September 30, 2021, Notice of Tax Assessment issued by the Township of Radnor (the “Township”) to LNL for additional business privilege tax for the years 2014-2019/2020 estimate. The assessment was based on an audit undertaken by a third-party auditor and consultant to the Township, following a periodic business review of LNL undertaken by the same individual in 2018. The assessment is comprised of taxes, interest and penalties for the period in question. LNL filed a motion for summary judgment that was denied by the court. The trial of this matter was held in the fourth quarter of 2024. On July 16, 2025, the trial court entered judgment in favor of LNL. On August 15, 2025, the Township filed a notice of appeal in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

State guaranty associations levy assessments on insurance companies doing business within their jurisdictions to cover policyholder losses from insolvent or impaired insurance companies. Mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in some states. We accrue the cost of future guaranty fund assessments based on estimates of insurance company insolvencies provided by the National Organization of Life & Health Insurance Guaranty Associations and the amount of premiums written in each state. We reported the undiscounted expected state guaranty fund assessment liability within other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of $41 million and $59 million as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. The actual amount of assessments levied against us in connection with insurance company insolvencies may vary from this estimate. Future guaranty fund assessments are expected to be paid based on anticipated funding periods for each guaranty association obligation. In addition, we reported the related receivable for expected future state premium tax recoveries within other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of $83 million and $96 million as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively. Premium tax recoveries are expected to be realized based on regulations set forth by the various state taxing authorities. The balance sheet position as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, nets to recoveries of $42 million and $37 million, respectively.

PHL Variable Insurance Company, a Connecticut-domiciled life insurer, and its subsidiaries Concord Re, Inc. and Palisado Re, Inc., (collectively, “PHL”) has been in a court-supervised rehabilitation proceeding since May 20, 2024. As reported to the Connecticut Superior Court on December 31, 2025, the Connecticut Insurance Commissioner, acting in the capacity of the rehabilitator for PHL, has determined that a rehabilitation plan is not feasible and that any resolution of PHL’s liabilities is expected to require a liquidation order with a finding of insolvency in order to trigger state guaranty association coverage. As of December 31, 2025, we have not recorded a liability specific to PHL because the amount and timing of any assessments are not reasonably estimable.

As of December 31, 2025 and 2024, we had operating lease ROU assets of $30 million and $49 million, respectively, and associated lease liabilities of $32 million and $49 million, respectively. The weighted-average discount rate was 3.8% and the weighted-average remaining lease term was three years and four years, respectively, as of December 31, 2025 and 2024. Operating lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024 and 2023, was $30 million, $35 million and $41 million, respectively, and reported in commissions and other expenses on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss).