Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Conference Call to discuss ProAssurance's Results for Fourth Quarter and Year End 2015. These results were reported in a news release on February 23, 2016, alongside the company's filing of its yearly report on Form 10-K. These documents are intended to provide you with important information about the significant risks, uncertainties and other factors that are out of the company's control and could affect ProAssurance's business and alter expected results. Further we caution you that management expects to make statements on this call dealing with projections, estimates and expectations and explicitly identifies these as forward-looking statements within the meaning of U.S. Federal Securities laws and subject to applicable Safe Harbor protections. The content of this call is accurate only on February 24, 2016 and except as required by law or regulation, ProAssurance will not undertake and expressly disclaims any obligation to update or alter information disclosed as part of these forward-looking statements. The management team of ProAssurance expect to reference non-GAAP items during today's call the company's recent news release provides the reconciliation of these non-GAAP numbers to their GAAP counterparts. Now as I turn the call over to Mr. Frank O'Neil, I would like to remind you this call is being recorded and there will be time for questions after the conclusion of prepared remarks. Mr. O'Neil, please go ahead.

Thank you, Vickie and welcome to everybody on the call. Participating with us today are our Chairman and CEO, Stancil Starnes; Howard Friedman, the President of our Healthcare Professional Liability Group; our Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Ned Rand; and Mike Boguski, the President of our Workers Compensation Business. As is our custom we are going to begin with remarks from Stan to set the stage for our presentation. Stan?

Thanks, Frank, and thanks to those who are joining us today to hear more about our fourth-quarter and full year 2015 results. We produced solid results despite operating in a fiercely competitive environment and facing a very difficult investment climate. We also remained focused on creating value for our shareholders returning $290 million in capital through dividends and the fiscally responsible repurchase of our shares. As strong as our results were in the quarter and for the year, adjustments in the fourth quarter did reduce our profitability. Today we want to peel back the layers and help you understand those adjustments. We also want to you to understand why we are so optimistic about the opportunities ahead of us in 2016 and beyond. Since so much of what Ned will discuss in his financial review is predicated on understanding the reserve adjustments I think it might be helpful to hear from Howard first. Howard?

Thank you, Stan. Let me reiterate something from the new release as prefers preface to my discussion. We do not see any change in the underlying loss trends in our medical professional liability business and prior year favorable loss reserve development was quite strong. However there were a few items that had an effect on the current accident year loss ratio which deserve some discussion. I'll start with loss reserves for mass-tort events. These events have unfortunately become a fact of life for healthcare and professional liability. In short they are collections of medical liability lawsuits that stem from common or related causes; an example would be a headline grabbing billing investigation such as a physician who is accused of performing unnecessary procedures. The headline attracts dozens or even hundreds of civil claims that parallel any regulatory or criminal proceedings. While these professional liability claims may not result in indemnity payments they require defense and can be complex. That said they are a limited portion of our overall open case inventory and a correspondingly small part of our reserves, a bit less than 2%. As we've explained in the past however, even a small change in reserves on a percentage basis can have an outsized effect on our results because of the size of our overall reserve balance. In our actuarial evaluation at year-end, we added $12 million to our current accident year reserves for these mass-tort events. Again a small number relative to the size of our reserve balance, but enough to affect the current year loss ratio. Also in the quarter our reserve for death, disability and retirement, DDR, developed favorably, but not as favorably as last year when we made a more significant adjustment to the retirement and lapse rate assumptions that drive this reserve. So that…

Thanks, Howard, now we're going to get some follow-up on Specialty P&C segment with you in a minute, but Ned with Howard's background will you walk us through the financials?

Sure, Frank. I'll echo Stan's comments this was the successful profitable year for ProAssurance and I'll focus my comments on the year's results except where quarter specific events require additional color. Net income for 2015 was $116 million or $2.11 per diluted share. 2015 operating income was $143 million or $2.61 per diluted share. Both results were affected by the fourth quarter adjustments Howard just explained. Our net investment result for the year declined by $17 million compared to last year as the current investment climate dampened our results as it has for almost every other insurance company. For the year we recorded a $3.7 million gain from our equity and earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries, about $300,000 less than in 2014. Net investment income for the year was $109 million, a 13.5% year-over-year decline primarily due to lower average investment balances, resulting from our continuing capital management programs as well as the lower-interest rate environment. Investment impairments totaled $15.3 million in 2015, $9.2 million in the quarter primarily in energy related adjustments. Stan mentioned our optimism about 2016 and our operational results in 2015 and in the fourth quarter are part of the reason we feel that excitement. For the year consolidated gross premiums written were up 4.2% over last year and in the fourth quarter the increase over 2014's final quarter was 9%. In the fourth quarter all our operating segments saw premium growth over the fourth quarter of 2014, building momentum into 2016. This was especially true in workers' compensation and in our Lloyd Syndicate segments, which have increased premium in every quarter this year as compared to 2014. Cross-selling and cross licensing of agents and brokers is continuing to add premium. In 2015 we were able to generate approximately $5.5 million of new business from targeted accounts…

Thanks, Ned. Next, let's go back to Howard for comments on Specialty P&C.

Thanks, Frank. Specialty P&C gross premiums written were down a little more than 1% year-over-year, but were up 6.6% in the fourth quarter compared to last year. For the year physician premiums the largest component within specialty were down a little less than 2% although they were up 6.4% in the fourth quarter. We added $23 million of new physician business for the year. We noted a 9.9% increase in healthcare facility premiums for the year with much of that coming in the fourth quarter. This is another reason for our optimism about 2016 given that facilities are playing an ever increasing role in the delivery of healthcare in the U.S. We think this shows we are making progress in this area. Physician premium retention was 91% in the quarter, a 1 point improvement over the last year and we called our way back to 89% for the year unchanged from last year, but a significant accomplishment if you recall our 85% premium retention in the first quarter of 2015. Pricing on our renewing physician business improved a point year-over-year. I said this before, but I'll say it again. Despite some isolated adjustments and reserves we do not see a change in the underlying loss trends across our insurance lines in the Specialty P&C segment. In healthcare professional liability the largest portion of the segment our frequency remains essentially flat and severity continues to increase at the same manageable 2% to 3% for year.

Thanks, Howard. We'll go now to Mike Boguski for comments about the Workers' Compensation segment. Welcome Mike.

Thank you, Frank. The Workers' Compensation segment operating results for the year end 2015 increased 28.5% over 2014, driven by growth in earned premium, prudent expense management and partially offset by an increase in losses. Our 2015 fourth quarter results decreased compared to the same period in the prior year, driven by an increase in severity-related claims activity both in our traditional book of business and alternative market programs. Our net premiums written increased 8% year-over-year, driving a 9.5% increase in total revenue. Premiums were higher across all of operating territories and we wrote $38 million of new business. Our audit premium was $6.8 million a gain of approximately 79% year-over-year, driven by improved economic conditions and strong financial underwriting. Renewal pricing increased 1% in the quarter and 1.5% for the year. Premium retention was 83% for the year and roughly the same in the fourth quarter, reflecting the intense competition in our operating territories and the conversion of two guarantee cost accounts to large deductibles, which carry a lower premium. We renewed all the available alternative programs during 2015 and successfully added three new programs during the year. Two of which were produced in the healthcare market segment, including our first combined medical professional liability and Workers' Compensation segregated portfolio cell program. I previously mentioned the severity increase in the fourth quarter, much of which relates to injuries to newly hired workers from policyholders, adding employees to keep pace with sectors of the growing economy. There were 10 reinsured claims for all of 2015 including five in the fourth quarter compared to three reinsured claims for all 2014 with one such occurrence in the fourth quarter. The hazard level of our book of business remains consistent year-over-year and claims frequency declined 5.9% in the traditional book of business in 2015. We recorded $2.2 million of favorable reserve development in 2015 compared to $1.3 million in 2014. For both years this includes $1.6 million relating to the amortization of purchase accounting fair value adjustments. We successfully closed 64.5% of 2014 and prior claims during the year compared to 59.7% in 2014, representing one of the best claim closure years in our company history. Importantly as of year-end 2015 we adjust 11 non-reinsured claims open in our traditional book of business from 2007 and prior. And in the alternative markets book there was only one open non-reinsured from 2007 and prior. These results highlight the unique short-term nature of our business compared to competitors in this line. The 1 point decrease in the 2015 expense ratio is primarily attributable to close attention in the expense management coupled with the growth in premiums and reduced reinsurance rates. Also we have mentioned throughout the year. The implementation of the corporate management fee in 2015 had no counterpart in 2014 and thus limited the decrease in the 2015 underwriting expense ratio. The 2015 combined ratio is 95.9%, including 2.4 percentage points of intangible asset amortization and the initiation of the corporate management fee. Frank?

Thank you, Mike. We are going to bounce back to Howard now to get an update on Lloyd.

Thanks, Frank. Two points to stress, remember we are reporting on a one quarter lag with the exception of certain U.S. based administrative expenses and investment results associated with our funds of Lloyd's, which are helped as an investment and we are reporting on four quarters of operations in this call whereas last year due to the lag we reported only on three quarters. Our 58% participation in Syndicate 1729 resulted in $57 million of gross premiums written in the 12 months we are reporting, almost 69% higher than last year. While a portion of the increase can be traced to the difference in the number of operational quarters natural growth on the syndicate's operations and the increase in staff in 2015 are paving the way for solid growth. Underwriting expenses are also higher due to the extra quarter and the additional staffing and were fully expected as we staffed up to attract and underwrite a wider range of risks. We are encouraged to see the underwriting expense ratio continue to decline down 27 points for the full reporting period and a direct result of the increase in premiums. Also to be expected as a business expense is an increase in claims activity with net losses and LAE at $25.2 million for the 12 months compared to $8.4 million in the comparable period of 2014. With the syndicate's business not yet mature we are continuing to rely on Lloyd's historical data for similar risks to establish our expected loss ratios, which are little changed from the same period last year. It will likely be some time in 2017 before we are comfortable using the syndicate's own loss experience. The syndicate's mix of premiums remains dominated by casualty coverages at approximately 47% of the premiums. Catastrophe reinsurance accounts were approximately 19%, direct property coverage is approximately 29% and property reinsurance comprises the remaining 5%. The majority of the syndicate's business remains U.S. based. We've had representatives in London within the last three weeks meeting with Duncan Dale and other reinsurers. Duncan tells us that he and his underwriting team are still seeing a strong flow of submissions, but given the pricing pressure in the market Duncan is remaining cautious about the business he writes, which is consistent with our own long standing business philosophy and our expectations for Syndicate 1729. Frank?

Thank you, Howard, Stan we'll come back to you for final thoughts and then we'll be ready to take questions.

Thanks, Frank. If you think about it this has been a tumultuous year for insurance stocks and ProAssurance stands out with the return of capital to shareholders and the total return on our stock, which outperformed all comparative indexes and for our ability to adapt to the changing healthcare landscape. We added facility business and we grew through cross-selling. While the challenges we face in our business are significant, I am pleased that we are successfully rising to meet those challenges. We have built a solid platform, which will assure our future success. We are now seeing the first fruits of our vision for our healthcare centric insure, which can meet a wide range of insurance needs for our customers in those markets and geographies that are advantageous to our business models. Finally, let me note that Medmarc is an important part of that platform and as we have previously announced Medmarc's President, Mary Todd Peterson is retiring prior to our next call. So I want to end our remarks by publicly thanking and acknowledging Mary Todd for all of her many contributions to the success of Medmarc and ProAssurance. Mary Todd we are very grateful, thank you. Frank?

Thanks, Stan. Vickie if you'll open the line back up we'll stand by to take questions.

Thank you [Operator Instructions] and we will take the first question today from Paul Newsome with Sandler O'Neill. Please go ahead.

Good morning, thanks for the call. I just wanted to see if you had any more details you’d give us about the outlook for investment income over the next year or two with the cross currents of investment returns plus the mix shift I guess you're doing more tax benefit type businesses plus your stock buybacks?

Ned?

Yeah, hey Paul. So it's a great question a couple of things, so assuming that we kind of keep repurchases and dividends at a comparable level to last year we'd expect to see the portfolio continue to shrink, which will have a declining impact on investment income. You point out the tax credits we've been invested in low income housing tax credits for a number of years dating back to 2009-2010 when we saw some significant opportunities there. The historic tax credit that I've referenced we began investing in this year and the tax benefits will turn around next year. The unique thing about those investments is that while they provide a substantial tax benefit to us they also reduce investment income. And so it's shifting kind of where the benefit goes and so when you just look at that investment income line it reduces that. Then with the other investments that we've made private equity investments and the like we are very confident the long-term nature of those investments and the returns they'll generate they just do add volatility on a quarter-to-quarter basis. For the low income having tax credits we would expect something similar to the amortization we saw this year and you can get into the details of that within our 10-K. The historic tax credits will add another $4 million or so in amortization expense against the investment income.

Great. And then my second question is also sort of an outlook perspective that you had a number of adjustments that ran through the income statement that affected premiums; given the growth of the Lloyd's business and I think there's some other adjustments how should we see sort of the relationships of your net earned premium, the gross premiums prospectively change given the business mix shifting?

Howard?

I think there is a few parts to that Paul. We have the adjustments in the ceded premium that was due the retrospective reinsurance premiums accruals that I went through. That is loss driven and as you saw it can go up in one quarter or year and down in the next. So that one is a little tougher to predict. The Lloyd's business we expect to continue to see growth and with growth even I have written premium leading earned premium. So there should be a little bit of a gap opening up as a result of that. On the Specialty P&C side, premiums are flat to slightly down so written and earned on a gross basis would stay about the same, but we are ceding more as I also mentioned in the remarks regarding our shared risk programs with Ascension. So that could distort it just a bit there. Workers' Comp continues to grow, so you have a little bit of a leading effect on written versus earned there. And back on Lloyd's, there is an earnings pattern difference between the portions of the Lloyd's business the reinsurance business versus the direct business that sometimes works on a lag. So I think it's actually pretty difficult thing to predict. And it's a good question and the further you break it down into the pieces, you can start to get a little bit of an idea, but I think it's a tough one from my perspective to say just what we're going to see as the different mix of business changes.

Ned anything to add?

No, I'd echo Howard's comment. And then just point out that the -- what he mentioned on the Lloyd's business typically on the reinsurance business that business as we write it is going to earn over more like a 24 months period. So you do get some distortions there in earning patterns on the Lloyd's business.

Okay, thank you very much.

[Operator Instructions]. And we will now take a question from Amit Kumar with Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Thanks and good morning and thanks for taking my questions. And Stan I agree with you that you guys rank as one of the top value creators in the P&C space often that fact is lost based on the gyrations of the stock market. Two quick questions and I have some static on my line. Just going back to the discussion on those three cases, and I apologize if I missed this, did you go into detail what gives you comfort that there wouldn't be any other cases like that lurking in the book which could result in adjustments down the road?

Howard, and then I'll add something to it.

Not, well, first I didn't really say anything about other cases, because as we look at those three cases, they are from the 2008 coverage year. So obviously they are claims that have been - a lawsuits that have been around for a good while they were tried eventually to verdicts. And now two of them at least are going to be retried in some manner. One on appeal and one with actual new trial that was ordered. So that can happen. We are vigorous in terms of defending our insurance. We take a high number of cases to trial relative to other companies in the industry. And when you do that you have verdicts from time-to-time oftentimes even a plaintiff’s verdict has appeal ability in terms of us being able to go back and try to remand it or get a reversal, but when you do get the verdict particularly if the verdict is more than what you had expected from a liability perspective and what your reserve was. You can have an increase in reserves. And oftentimes that increase in reserve is in the reinsured layers, it's the large case. So you get the premium adjustment that goes with it. So I really think it's a fact, it's just a matter a course of doing business type of thing.

So nothing unusual -- sorry to cut you off, so nothing unusual per se in terms of these specific cases, in terms of terms and conditions or the coverage that was written or the insured. So what you're saying net-net is there was nothing unusual, this is just business as usual, it's the nature of the business, hence investors should not start worrying that there could be -- this could balloon into something bigger. Is it correct?

That's correct. That's what I would say, these were physician liability cases and just another point before Stan goes, even though we have this up and down sometimes we are up sometimes, we are down, the overall profitability and trends that we are seeing in trials are very much the same as what we have seen before. Stan?

And Amit the only thing I would add to that is that the confluence of these three cases all from the 2008 year is what makes this a little bit unusual. I mean we take a lot of cases to trial, they come from a lot of different policy years. You get a lot of different results. You had three unrelated cases that just happen to come to trial at the same time all from the same year. So that gives you a confluence that that makes it a little bit unusual. The other thing to emphasize is that all of this is part of our normal reserving process and the normal course of business in terms of how we deal with adverse verdicts. They don't occur frequently, but when they occur we deal with them in a very consistent fashion. One of them is already been sitting back for a new trial. So we’ve prevailed in the post-trial effort there and we'll see what happens down the road and the other two remain very much as part of the litigation process.

Got it. That's actually very helpful. The only other question and I'll re queue, maybe Stan was talking about the capital discussion regarding when you are talking about the buyback and why the buyback was a bit lighter and you talked about the special dividend. Now clearly if you look at the company, if you look at R versus E, the ROE is somewhat depressed just based on the level of capital at the company, right? And that something investors clearly look at and probably not everyone is plugging in the leverage factors for the entire P&C space. I'm curious as you look out toward 2016, just putting those comments regarding buyback on the same page. What other things could you do to optimize the capital structure, which could lead to a higher ROE down the road?

I'll let Ned answer the specifics of that Amit. But I would say this, our Board at every meeting reviews capital management. Our senior management group reviews it every week virtually. We make very deliberate intentional decisions on capital management based on an entire host of factors, which we think are in the best interest of the organization and therefore in the best interest of our shareholders. I think the best indication of how we intend to be responsible with respect to capital management can be seen through the lens of the years that it pass since the present senior management team came together in July of 2007. Since that time we have virtually doubled shareholders' equity by returning and at the same time returning over $1 billion to the shareholders and putting over $750 million to use in strategic acquisitions and I think that's the best indication of how we intend to handle our capital management. Now to the specific of financial aspects of your question I'll let Ned add his views.

Thanks Stan. I think Stan actually covered it quite well. I mean as we look out to 2016 and beyond our preference is to take a capital that we have available and to put it to work in the business either through organic opportunities, growth opportunities that we see within the business or through M&A activity, which has long been a part of how we've grown the organization. Following that we will seek to be prudent in returning capital to shareholders. And I don't know if you are drifting into the area of kind of financial engineering, Amit and there are things you can do essentially swapping out commons or preferreds and other things like that that might reduce ROE. I would say we are very unlikely to do anything like that.

That's actually helpful. So let me ask this is final sort of related question. Based on where we are in the market cycle and Stan was talking about the challenges in the industry, what would you put as your expectation broadly for sort of a normalized ROE going forward?

Ned?

Yeah Amit we don't give out any guidance. I'm sorry about that; we continue to price our business. I'm kind of gearing that toward a 13% return on deployed capital and beyond that we really don't give to any additional guidance.

Do you think you'll hit that number?

I think within pieces of our lines of business again these are long-term objectives there will be areas in our business from a pricing perspective that we believe we're achieving that 13% return yes.

Okay.

And that's based on -- Amit that's based on the assumption of one-to-one capital to premium.

Capital to premium.

One-to-one on kind of the Specialty P&C lines more like $1.25 of premium to $1 surplus on the comp business.

Got it, okay. These are very helpful points, thank you so much and good luck for the future.

And we'll now take a question from Ryan Byrnes with Janney. Please go ahead.

Good morning, guys. Just had a question on the pricing outlook in kind of the Specialty line some of the larger players have seen some issues in long tail casually obviously one of the biggest players in the world and another Bermuda player had some reserving issues there just wanted to get your thoughts there if that could have any impact on pricing going forward?

Howard?

Yes I think it's certainly something that has potential, I guess the way that I would say it. There are plenty of competitors, but to see the two that you mentioned who particularly participate in the hospitals and larger facilities larger in some case larger physician groups being at least concerned about the pricing, concerned about their results maybe modifying the approach that they are taking to the market. I think maybe an early sign that there could be some movement and I don't know how many times you can caveat that because early and lots of competitors and potential and all that. But it's the first evidence of that that we've really seen in quite a number of years and in the past and going back to the prior cycles of early 2000s and late 1980s it was the commercial market that moved -- started to move their approach moved the underwriting move to pricing first. So who knows I guess is best answer, but it's certainly something that we're watching pretty carefully as various accounts come in for submissions and up for renewal.

Yeah and I was trying to figure out has there been any influx in submissions because of I guess those issues?

Yes we have seen submissions from at least one of those -- submissions that are currently written by at least one of those two carriers.

Okay and then just my last one is and really this is kind of an awkward question, but there seem to be a bounce back in the seasonality of reserve releases in the specialty segment that had been we had to had lot of seasonality in the past and then last couple of years we had less than this year it came back were there any one-time reason in the fourth quarter this year or was that just a way that cards came out I guess?

Howard I think the latter.

It's again the matter of we do try to and we have tried and continue to try to be as proactive in current in our valuations as we can be and then at the same time after we looked at the fourth quarter and looked at the results of the year as a whole with respect to the prior year reserve development we just saw things looking better than we had as we went through the year and with the perspective of full 12 months of results relative to last year's analysis it was indicated that we had more redundancy in some of those prior years than we had seen through the nine months period. It's not a change in approach we're still trying to be more current and we'll continue to do so.

Okay, great. Thanks that's all I guess.

Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] And Mr. O'Neil it appears there are no other questions so I'll turn the call back over to you.

All right thank you very much Vickie and thanks to everyone who participated today. We will speak to you next we believe in the first part of May. Thank you.

And thank you very much. That does conclude our conference for today. I would like to thank everyone for your participation.