Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements: In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Financial Instruments - Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities, or ASU 2016-01. The amendments in ASU 2016-01 changed the accounting for non-consolidated equity investments that are not accounted for under the equity method of accounting by requiring changes in fair value to be recognized in income. Previously, the Company's equity securities were classified as available-for-sale and changes in fair value were recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) as a component of shareholders' equity. The Company adopted ASU 2016-01 as of January 1, 2018 using the modified retrospective approach and recorded a cumulative-effect adjustment to reclassify unrealized gains on equity securities of $71,012 ($46,157, net of tax) from other comprehensive income (loss) to retained earnings within the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2018. Unrealized gains or losses on equity securities are now recognized in the consolidated statements of operations within net unrealized gains (losses) on equity securities and limited partnership investments. In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), or ASU 2016-02. ASU 2016-02 superseded the prior lease guidance in ASC Topic 840, Leases. Under the new guidance, lessees are required to recognize for all leases, with the exception of short-term leases, a lease liability, which is a lessee's obligation to make lease payments arising from a lease, measured on a discounted basis. Concurrently, lessees are required to recognize a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee's right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term. The guidance provided for a modified retrospective transition approach for leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative periods presented in the financial statements. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-11, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements, or ASU 2018-11, which provided adopters an additional transition method by allowing entities to initially apply ASU 2016-02, and subsequent related standards, at the adoption date and recognize a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the period of adoption. The Company adopted the new guidance on January 1, 2019 utilizing the transition method allowed per ASU 2018-11, and accordingly, comparative period financial information was not adjusted for the effects of the new guidance. No cumulative-effect adjustment was required to the opening balance of retained earnings on the adoption date. The Company's adoption of the new standard did not have any impact on the Company's consolidated statements of operations or cash flows. As of December 31, 2020 the Company had a right-of-use asset and a lease liability recorded within the consolidated balance sheet, each of approximately $120, which are included within other assets and accounts payable and other liabilities. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-09, Codification Improvements. This update provided clarification, corrected errors in and made minor improvements to various ASC topics. Many of the amendments in this update had transition guidance with effective dates for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, and some amendments in this update did not require transition guidance and were effective upon issuance of this update. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements. In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, or ASU 2016-13. ASU 2016-13 introduced a current expected credit loss (CECL) model for measuring expected credit losses for certain types of financial instruments held at the reporting date requiring significant judgment in application based on historical experience, current conditions and reasonable supportable forecasts, but is not prescriptive about certain aspects of estimating expected losses. The guidance replaced the current incurred loss model for measuring expected credit losses and provided for additional disclosure requirements.  Subsequently, the FASB issued additional ASUs on Topic 326 that did not change the core principle of the guidance in ASU 2016-13, but provided clarification and implementation guidance on certain aspects of ASU 2016-13, and have the same effective date and transition requirements as ASU 2016-13. The Company adopted the guidance using a modified retrospective approach as of January 1, 2020 and recognized an pre-tax cumulative effect adjustment of $15,545 ($12,281, net of tax), to the opening balance of retained earnings.  The adjustment was primarily related to estimating credit losses on the Company’s accounts receivable balances, reinsurance recoverable balances and commercial mortgage loans at the date of adoption with $15,000 ($11,850, net of tax) attributed to the ongoing litigation with Personnel Staffing Group ("PSG") discussed in Note T - Litigation, Commitments and Contingencies. The updated guidance in ASU 2016-13 also amended the previous other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) model for available-for-sale fixed income securities by requiring the recognition of impairments relating to credit losses through an allowance account and limits the amount of credit loss to the difference between a security’s amortized cost basis and its fair value. In addition, the length of time a security has been in an unrealized loss position will no longer impact the determination of whether a credit loss exists. The Company adopted the guidance related to available-for-sale fixed income securities on January 1, 2020 using a prospective transition approach for available-for-sale fixed income securities that were purchased with credit deterioration or had recognized an OTTI write-down prior to the effective date. The effect of the prospective transition approach was to maintain the same amortized cost basis before and after the effective date. 57