In the normal course of business, we are subject to regulatory and government investigations and actions, and litigation and other forms of dispute resolution in a large number of proceedings pending in various domestic and foreign jurisdictions. Certain of these matters involve potentially significant risk of loss due to potential for significant jury awards and settlements, punitive damages or other penalties. Many of these matters are also highly complex and may seek recovery on behalf of a class or similarly large number of plaintiffs. It is therefore inherently difficult to predict the size or scope of potential future losses arising from these matters. In our insurance and reinsurance operations, litigation and arbitration concerning the scope of coverage under insurance and reinsurance contracts, and litigation and arbitration in which our subsidiaries defend or indemnify their insureds under insurance contracts, are generally considered in the establishment of our future policy benefits. Separate and apart from the foregoing matters involving insurance and reinsurance coverage, we and our respective officers and directors are subject to a variety of additional types of legal proceedings brought by holders of our securities, customers, employees and others, alleging, among other things, breach of contractual or fiduciary duties, bad faith, indemnification and violations of federal and state statutes and regulations. With respect to these other categories of matters not arising out of claims for insurance or reinsurance coverage, we establish reserves for loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss will be incurred, and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many instances, we are unable to determine whether a loss is probable or to reasonably estimate the amount of such a loss and, therefore, the potential future losses arising from legal proceedings may exceed the amount of liabilities that we have recorded in our financial statements covering these matters. While such potential future charges could be material, based on information currently known to management, management does not believe, other than as may be discussed below, that any such charges are likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Additionally, from time to time, various regulatory and governmental agencies review our transactions and practices in connection with industry-wide and other inquiries or examinations into, among other matters, the business practices of current and former operating subsidiaries. Such investigations, inquiries or examinations could develop into administrative, civil or criminal proceedings or enforcement actions, in which remedies could include fines, penalties, restitution or alterations in our business practices, and could result in additional expenses, limitations on certain business activities and reputational damage.

Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Co. (S.D. Cal.) was a putative class action involving Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 of the California Insurance Code, instituted against AGL on July 18, 2017 in state court. AGL removed the matter to federal court on August 23, 2017. In general, those statutes require that for life-insurance policies issued and delivered in California: (1) the policy must contain a 60-day grace period following non-payment of premium during which the policy remains in force; (2) the insurer must provide a 30-day pre-lapse notice; and (3) the insurer must notify policy owners of the right to designate a secondary recipient for lapse notices. The plaintiff contended that AGL did not comply with these requirements for a policy issued before these statutes went into effect. The plaintiff sought damages and other relief. AGL asserted various defenses to the plaintiff’s claims and to class certification. In 2022, the District Court held that a trial was necessary to determine whether AGL was liable on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. Also in 2022, the District Court denied class certification and granted partial summary judgment for AGL on the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case was reassigned to a new judge in 2023, who remanded the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) back to state court, where it has been stayed ever since. The judge also granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. AGL appealed the 2023 summary judgment decision to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit held that any policyholder or beneficiary suing based on alleged breaches of Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 must prove that the breaches actually caused them harm, for instance by resulting in missed payments or the lapse of the policy. Thus, on March 4, 2025, the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s 2023 summary judgment order and remanded for further proceedings. The panel also denied the plaintiff’s request to certify a question to the California Supreme Court. After the U.S. Supreme Court denied review, the case returned to the District Court.

The District Court entered an order on September 3, 2025, remanding the plaintiff’s claim for restitution under the UCL to state court. As a result, the plaintiff’s UCL claim was fully in state court and still subject to a stay pending resolution of the federal case. The plaintiff subsequently moved to lift the stay in state court, but the state court denied that motion on December 12, 2025. The plaintiff also moved to give notice to former putative class members of the denial of class certification; that motion was denied by the District Court on December 18, 2025.

On January 12, 2026, a jury trial was held in the District Court on the plaintiff’s individual breach of contract claim. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff on January 13, 2026, and the District Court was expected to enter a final judgment awarding the plaintiff the benefits of the policy (approximately $1 million), plus interest. The parties subsequently reached a settlement to resolve both the District Court and state court matters with finality. Upon the entry of dismissals with prejudice on the District Court and state court dockets, we will cease reporting these matters.

AGL is also defending other actions in California involving similar issues. Gevorgyan v. American General Life Insurance Co. (C.D. Cal.) was filed in state court on January 17, 2025, and removed to federal court on March 27, 2025. The case involves living insureds with two $250,000 policies. On March 26, 2026, the Court largely denied AGL’s motion for summary judgment and found a triable issue of fact on the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages. A jury trial is set for June 29, 2026. Delgado v. American General Life Insurance Co. (C.D. Cal.) was filed in federal court on March 7, 2025. Rocklage v. American General Life Insurance Co. (N.D. Cal.) was filed in state court on April 21, 2025, and removed to federal court on May 30, 2025. Eisenberg v. American General Life Insurance Co. (C.D. Cal.) was filed in state court on September 2, 2025, and removed to federal court on November 14, 2025. People of the State of California v. American General Life Insurance Co., et al. (Cal. Superior Court, San Diego County) was filed on October 17, 2024, against AGL, Lincoln Benefit Life Co., Everlake Life Insurance Co., and Transamerica Life Insurance Co., seeking civil penalties and equitable relief under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. in connection with all California policies issued before 2013 that lapsed for nonpayment of premiums since January 1, 2013. On January 27, 2025, AGL filed a demurrer to the complaint. That demurrer was heard on July 10, 2025. The trial court sustained AGL’s demurrer as to misjoinder on August 25, 2025, but granted leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on September 11, 2025, and AGL filed an answer to that pleading on October 14, 2025. Discovery has since commenced. A trial date is currently set for March 5, 2027.

We are subject to guarantees and indemnity arrangements in connection with the completed sales of businesses. The various arrangements may be triggered by, among other things, declines in asset values; the occurrence of specified business contingencies; the realization of contingent liabilities; developments in litigation; or breaches of representations, warranties or covenants provided by us. These arrangements are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitations. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation is subject to contractual limitations, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or are not applicable.

Certain of our insurance subsidiaries benefit from General Guarantee Agreements under which American Home Assurance Company (“AHAC”) or National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“NUFIC”) has unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed all present and future obligations arising from certain insurance policies issued by these subsidiaries (a “Guaranteed Policy” or the “Guaranteed Policies”). AHAC and NUFIC are required to perform under the agreements if one of the insurance subsidiaries fails to make payments due under a Guaranteed Policy. These General Guarantee Agreements have all been terminated as to insurance policies issued after the date of termination. AHAC and NUFIC have not been required to perform under any of the agreements but remain contingently liable for all policyholder obligations associated with the Guaranteed Policies. We did not pay any fees under these agreements for the three months ended March 31, 2026 or 2025.

In addition to the Separation Agreement, we entered into a guarantee reimbursement agreement with AIG which provides that we will reimburse AIG for the full amount of any payment made by or on behalf of AIG pursuant to the CRBGLH External Debt Guarantee. We have also entered into a collateral agreement with AIG which provides that in the event of: (i) a ratings downgrade of Corebridge Parent or CRBGLH long-term unsecured indebtedness below specified levels or (ii) the failure by CRBGLH to pay principal and interest on the External Debt when due, we must collateralize an amount equal to the sum of: (a) 100% of the principal amount outstanding, (b) accrued and unpaid interest and (c) 100% of the net present value of scheduled interest payments through the maturity dates of the CRBGLH External Debt.