Baldwin & Lyons ends tough year with quarterly profit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Baldwin & Lyons Inc. turned a profit in the fourth quarter, but it wasn’t enough to erase a dismal 2011 plagued by catastrophic losses.

The auto and trucking fleet insurer said Thursday morning that it earned $5.5 million, or 37 cents per share, in the quarter, down from $10.3 million, or 69 cents per share, in the same period of 2010.

Baldwin & Lyons lost $28.2 million in 2011 after earning $25 million the previous year. It suffered losses in the first three quarters of 2011.

Quarterly revenue rose from $67.7 million to $71.4 million in the latest quarter, but annual revenue fell from from $249.5 million in 20101 to $243.6 million in 2011.    

Baldwin & Lyons said profit in the fourth quarter was dragged down by $5 million in after-tax losses sustained in connection with flooding in Thailand that began in October and continued through the rest of the year.

Quarterly investment gains also dropped, from $3.8 million to $2 million.

During the year, the insurer paid for significant damage its policyholders sustained from Hurricane Irene, which ravaged the East Coast in August, and other storms in the United States, as well as continuing claims from the March earthquake in Japan.

For 2011, major catastrophes resulted in about $43 million in after-tax losses compared to about $17 million during 2010, the company said.

The insurer did see a rise in business, with written premiums increasing 12 percent in the quarter and 13 percent for the year.

Baldwin & Lyon’s common stock closed Wednesday at $23 per share, its highest closing price since Nov. 15.   



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing