Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Conference Call to discuss ProAssurance’s Results for the First Quarter of 2016. These results were reported in a news release earlier today and also in the Company’s filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q. 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 May 9, 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 expects 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. Frank O’Neil: Thank you, Karrie. Participating in today’s call are our Chairman and CEO, Stan Starnes; Howard Friedman, the President of our Healthcare Professional Liability Group; Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Ned Rand; and Mike Boguski, the President of Eastern Insurance Alliance, our Workers’ Compensation Subsidiary. I am going to ask Stan to give us some opening comments. Stan?

Thanks, Frank, and thank you to everyone who has joined us to learn about first quarter 2016 results, hear an update on our view of the markets we serve and learn about the progress of our strategic initiatives to address the opportunities in these markets. My comments and our announcements of preliminary results on April 28th, laid the ground work for my opening thoughts. We are not going to tell you that we are pleased with our investment results this quarter. We fell short of expectations as far as our investment performance was concerned. However, in fairness, the energy sector has been a challenge for most companies in that field and for those who have invested in it. However, from an operational standpoint, we continue to be confident in the strategy we have laid out. We remain a solidly profitable Company with strong underwriting results, a disciplined approach to business that are very challenging and a conviction that our strategic initiatives are succeeding while also sowing the seeds of future success. We will make that the focus throughout our remarks today, which we will open with Ned’s discussion of financial results. Ned?

Thanks Stan. Because investments reflect a big factor in our results, I’ll deal with those first and then will cover our corporate segment operations as well. As you know, if you have looked at any of our investor presentations, only about 5% of our portfolio is energy related, but it had an outsized effect this quarter. We maintain a well diversified portfolio, which includes equity and alternative investments. There can be volatility in both. And in any one quarter, they may provide a tailwind, as they have in the past or as in this quarter, a headwind. We had $8.4 million in realized investment losses in the quarter, which included $9.7 million of impairment compared to a gain of $4.8 million in 2015; the culprit [ph] was mainly energy related investments. Our net investment result was down approximately $7 million than last year’s first quarter from $29 million to $22 million. Net investment income was down $1.9 million over the first quarter of 2015, as a result of lower investment balances caused by the significant amount of capital we returned to shareholders last year and the continuing low interest rate environment. Our investment in unconsolidated subsidiaries resulted in a $3.6 million loss compared to a $1.6 million gain in the prior year. Most of that decline was due to an increase in the amortization of tax credits related to the acceleration of operating losses as well as lower returns on our alternative investments. Now, I’ll turn to the results of our insurance activities, which paint a brighter picture. Gross premiums written were essentially flat year-over-year. Dissecting that we achieved 3% in Workers’ Compensation and a 47% increase in our Lloyd’s Syndicate segment, which was profitable for the first time in its short history Specialty P&C, our largest segment, was down…

Thanks Frank. The insurance lines and Specialty P&C continue to be some of the most competitive in the industry. Gross premiums were down 3.7% with physician premiums, the largest component, down 3.3%. However, healthcare facilities were up 5.5% and medical technology and life sciences up 4.2%. Recall that our M&A strategy over the past five years has been focused on adding to our capabilities, so that we can address the widest spectrum of healthcare related risks; with Medmarc being a key part of that, we’re pleased that the increase there. It’s also no secret that the facility market is a vital part of the healthcare professional liability line and becoming more important. So, gains in this area help validate our strategy. Remember that this is generally a once a year sales cycle and each year, we gain credibility as a market. As we have focused increased sales and marketing efforts in this area, we are becoming more successful, both in broker outreach to gain acceptance in the broker community and with the buyer serviced by the brokers. The increased premiums tell us we are having some success and as does the number of submissions, which are up 23% over last year. And it’s not just in facilities where we are seeing success, Ned mentioned the latest combined healthcare and workers’ compensation segregated portfolio sales. That added $1.9 million of new healthcare professional liability gross written premium to an established workers’ compensation program during the quarter. And just to note, Ned mentioned $800 million in cross-selling premium; it should have been $800,000. So, someday I hope to reach the $800 million milestone, not this quarter. Certainly, the retrenchment of AIG in various areas of healthcare liabilities is playing a role in increased activity and success. As an example, in the second…

Thank you, Frank. The Workers’ Compensation segment 2016 first quarter operating results decreased compared to the same period in the prior year, driven by an increase in the net loss ratio and underwriting expense ratio. Gross premium written increased to $78 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to $75.9 million for the same period in 2015, an increase of 3%. This includes new business writings of $9.4 million during the quarter. Audit premium was $1.5 million in the first quarter of 2016, a gain of approximately 10% year-over-year, driven by improved economic conditions and strong financial underwriting. Renewal pricing decreased 1.8% in the quarter, reflecting increased price competition in the Workers’ Compensation marketplace. Premium retention was 88.4% for the first quarter, driven by strong renewal retention results in our alternative market program business. We were successful on renewing all nine of the available alternative market programs in the quarter. Alternative market program direct written premium increased 16.2% compared to the same quarter in 2015. Importantly, we added a new healthcare Workers’ Compensation program, representing $1.9 million of new premium during the quarter. Overall, we were pleased with our healthcare market penetration in Workers’ Compensation. The healthcare book of business grew 15.5% quarter-over-quarter as compared to Workers’ Compensation segment growth of 3%. The increase in the first quarter of 2016 accident year loss ratio reflects renewal rate reductions during the quarter and management’s view that the growing will continue result in more severity related claims with less experienced workers. Favorable reserve development was $1.1 million in the quarter compared to $1.7 million in the first quarter of 2015, primarily related to alternative market business, but also includes $400,000 in both periods related to the amortization of purchase accounting fair value adjustments. We successfully closed 16% of 2015 and prior claims during the quarter, a result that is consistent with historical averages. The increased 2016 expense ratio is impacted by a 1.2-point increase in 2016 related to a settlement charge as part of the pension termination, Ned mentioned earlier. The 2016 combined ratio of 97.2% includes 2.4 percentage points of intangible asset amortization and 1.1 percentage points of a corporate management fee. Frank O’Neil: Thanks, Mike. Let’s go back to Howard now and get an update on the Lloyd’s segment.

Thanks, Frank. The big news is that the Lloyd segment was profitable this quarter. Segment operating profits were $1.6 million in the quarter compared to a loss of $1.1 million in the year ago quarter. 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 at Lloyd’s which are held as an investment. In the three months we are reporting, our 58% participation in Syndicate 1729 resulted in $6.9 million of gross premiums written, an increase of almost 47% over last year. Net earned premiums were up more than 100%. We continue to benefit from the maturation of the Syndicate’s operations and a greater ability to underwrite increasing submissions with a full staff onboard. Underwriting expenses continue to rise as the businesses build out, but the underwriting expense ratio continues to decline, down almost 21 points from the same reporting quarter in 2015. That reduction is the direct result of the increased top line in the Syndicate. Claims activity is keeping pace with the growth in premiums. Net losses in LAE were $6.2 million for the period, up a little more than 54% compared to last year. The Syndicates loss experience remains immature, and it generally continues to utilize Lloyd’s historical data for similar risks to establish the expected loss ratios, with consideration given to loss experience incurred to-date. We expect loss ratios to fluctuate from quarter to quarter as the Syndicate writes a verity of business in different risk classes and the book begins to mature. We recognized net favorable loss development of $400,000 for the quarter. The mix of premiums is dominated by property coverage, which is approximately 56% of the Syndicates premiums. Casualty coverage accounts for approximately 39% and property reinsurance comprises the remaining 5%. The majority of the Syndicate’s U.S. business remained U.S. based. We’re also looking forward to increase global health care professional liability activity now, that an underwriting team that was previously at market form, has joined Syndicate 1729. This team has a successful track record and has not been involved in underwriting business in some of those countries, which have be notoriously unprofitable. The team’s key international territories include Canada, Australia, South America and the Middle East. Separately from this activity of the Syndicate, we are perusing international health care professional liability opportunities in our Specialty P&C segment, both on a direct basis and through reinsurance. We hope to have more to report in the future, but due to the developmental nature of potential business, we’ll not be able to comment further at this time. Frank? Frank O’Neil: Thanks Howard. Stan, some final thoughts from you, please.

Thanks Frank. We’re optimistic about our future and we continue to see the positive results of our strategies to capitalize on the emerging trends in health care. You’ve heard about success in growing the business required to succeed in the new healthcare environment. And I would stress that we are also winning in the traditional healthcare delivery settings. There will always be a market for small groups and solo practitioners, and we’ll continue to serve it with an unparalleled commitment of this segment, just as we always have. If you’re looking for bottom line results from these early efforts, please remember that this is a long tail business. We know that we’re adding to our top line with alternative market programs, cross-selling and a better penetration of the brokers markets in the clients [ph] they represent. But that long tail business, underwritten with the same discipline as always, has yet to work its way to the bottom line. We are confident it will and we are confident in our future. Frank, let’s take questions. Frank O’Neil: Karrie, that’s your queue. If you’ll open the lines, we’ll respond to questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Amit Kumar of Macquarie. Please go ahead.

A few quick questions, number one, just going back to the discussion on pricing, pricing was flat this quarter; I’m taking about the healthcare piece. In the 10-K, you mentioned how pricing is down 17% from 2006. Stan, I’m just curious, is this sort of the new normal? I mean, how should we think about pricing going forward? You talked about competition, you talked about new opportunities, you talked the changing land escape, but all those being equal, are we entering sort of a new cyclical shift in terms of how we should think about incremental pricing from here?

I think the way that we should think about that, Amit, is to focus on the fact that we’ve never been a top line organization or top line Company. We remain very disciplined in the way we underwrite our risk and the way we price our risk. And if cannot obtain an adequate price for the risk we’re asked to take, we respectfully decline the risk. Now, part of the reason pricing is down, and the significant part of the reason the pricing is down in our book is because losses are down. We’ve been in a benign loss environment for a number of years, and you would expect pricing to fall as the loss environment improves. One company and one organization cannot create a cycle. I think what’s fair to say though is that we are looking at loss, we’re looking at our expenses and we’re pricing the business at a level that will continue to produce the same type of profits that we have secured in the past. But, if we can’t get the adequate price, we’ll walk away from the risk. And we’re happy to see our top line fall rather than driving unprofitable business or business that carries with it too much risk. So, I think the key word in all of this is discipline. It’s the discipline that has characterized everything we’ve done for decades and it will continue to characterize what we do in the past. Howard, do you have anything to add to that?

No. Not at all.

I’ll circle back on that question. The second question was related to the buyback. The buyback was muted; in fact, it’s one of the lowest in several quarters. I know you’ve briefly alluded to some new opportunities in the pipeline. Was that the reason why the buyback was so low or -- I know you don’t give any specific guidance and I am not looking for any, but should we be thinking about that this is sort of the new way to think about the buyback going forward or am I over thinking this?

The main reason for the decline in the quarter was just we’re priced out of the market for the way we established pricing. We look at, as we’ve talked about it in the past, about a three-year payback when we’re looking at the dilution caused by buying above book value. So, we just didn’t find the price there, given where the stock was trading. That was the main driver.

And final question and I’ll requeue. In terms of the Lloyd’s book, and you obviously have some U.S. exposure; how should we think about -- could there be exposure from the Texas [ph] losses or from the Canadian wildfires going forward? Thanks.

We actually had an update on those last week. The Canadian wildfires may present some loss exposure, kind of early at this point. They’re actually still evaluating the situation today, even in terms of the infrastructure and the damage to property. The Syndicate does not have a large exposure to Canadian property, particularly in that area, but there may be some coming out of the overall cat reinsurance treaties. Texas health [ph] also presents some potential activity and that will take a while to be evaluated since held claims notoriously take a long time to emerge, depending on going through the whole pipeline. Again, not expected to be a large exposure, but probably some loss activity that will impact the Syndicate.

And will that be in the Q2 numbers or because of the lag in Q3 or…

If it’s a material number, kind of material beyond our expectations of losses, we would bring that forward into the second quarter. If it’s in line with the loss ratios we’re booking, it would roll into the third quarter. So, for the lag, if there is something material that happens in the current quarter, we will recognize that.

Our next question comes from Mark Hughes of SunTrust. Please go ahead.

I’m interested, you said -- it sounds like you picked up a large account related to the retrenchment at AIG, is that big enough that you can call out the revenues associated with it or the premium associated with it?

We have not written that account yet, as mentioned in the earlier remarks that we bound the account and expected to be effective June 1st. So, at this point, no, we don’t have a number to provide to you.

Okay. You suggested submissions were up 23% on; is that -- that increase in submission, is that flow through your process? Your growth obviously was more in the single digits. Would we anticipate with submissions up that you might have a potential for an acceleration or are you seeing the submissions, a lot of them are not passing muster?

Well, there is always that first you get the submission and then you decide whether it’s something that you want to quote or decline and then assuming that you do quote whatever proportion that is. And you have obviously competition and bond ratio is usually in the mid to high single digits, low double digits as opposed to and particularly larger account business. But at the same time, you can’t write anything unless you get at-bats. And having the submissions up 23% is something that we’ve worked very hard at. And we think that we’re getting good cross-section. So, it’s not just a matter of more submissions with a higher declination ratio, we’re getting more submissions, more at-bats making more quotes. So, I think it will result in additional new business as we go through the year.

And what was submission growth say last year, maybe for full year, just sort of the norm in 2015?

I really don’t have it off hand and it’s something we’ve been working on more diligently. So, I think this maybe the first time we’ve actually put a number out there. And I don’t have a number for growth rate last year at this point.

But is that 23% is improvement?

Yes the 23% is the growth in submission over the first quarter of last year. I just don’t know what the growth was in last year’s first quarter over the prior year.

And then you mentioned, I think the new team in international healthcare professional liability. Anyway to -- how meaningful is that new team relative to your existing book?

Well remembers that it’s Lloyd’s, Mark. It’s not here in our healthcare, it’s at Lloyd’s. And obviously Duncan Dale who runs the Syndicate is the head of Dale Underwriting Partners is high on this group. He thought it was a great opportunity for the Syndicate and he acted on its. And it’s been discussed in the British insurance press in terms of names and who they are in background. But, we’ve discussed it with Duncan and we’re very satisfied with decision [indiscernible] and we look forward to the contributions they will make to the Syndicate as they come onboard and ramp up.

Any thoughts you can give on a go forward basis to income and unconsolidated subs, what we might expect as kind of 2Q, what’s the normal run rate here?

Mark, that’s the real challenge. I think you need to think about it in two pieces. There is the amortization of the tax credits, and we’ve provided some guidance and passed investor presentations on kind of expectations about that but even that has a good bit of variability to it. And recognize that that’s amortization. So, that’s a decrease or negative number for those returns. And then everything else in there is a variety of investments that I guess if I missed in my prepared remarks, have some volatility associated with them and some quarters they are very strong performances, in some quarters not so much. So, it’s very difficult to predict. I know that it makes it hard on all of you who try to model our results. The amortization of the tax credits is probably the most predictable part. And you can kind of look from quarter to quarter the trends that are going on there. The returns in the rest of the portfolio are going to be very difficult to project.

How about the latest thoughts on tax rates?

I continue to think that -- again, it’s a number of factors there. Obviously the tax rate -- the effective rate was decreased in the quarter in part because of the sizable realized losses we had in the quarter because that tax rate is driven by the impact that our tax preference -- investments have on pretax income and the realized losses in the quarter brought pretax income down. So, I think we continue to look at somewhere in low to mid-teens for the year, recognizing that it could be lower than that, depending on things like realized losses and also just how quickly some tax credits come on line.

Got you. And then the cross-selling, seems like it picked up a little bit of steam here or was that just having had a good quarter and a few things hit or is this improvement sustainable?

Mark, we are very pleased with it. It probably doesn’t hurt to recall what the sales cycle is like in this business. As we’ve said before, we’re not selling iPhones where somebody comes in today and looks out and comes back tomorrow and buys one. You generally get one chance a year to show our product and our offerings to a potential customer and it takes some time for them to get familiar with us and us with them. And the cycle can last occasionally for several years while you make presentations and deal with submissions before you can sign the one. So, it’s not possible to predict. What we’ve said is and this is back from the beginning of the Eastern transaction, we expect the cross-selling to begin as a trickle, grow into a creek, hopefully ultimately become a stream and maybe someday it gets to be a river. But it’s a lengthy process and one that will grow over time, but it will grow at an unpredictable rate. And it depends on lots of things that are happening outside of our specific markets with the actual healthcare concerns themselves and the workers’ comps concerns and the life sciences concern within their own markets. So, we’re pleased with the results. It continues to improve. We put a lot of emphasis on it. We think it will get better and better. But, it will be -- it won’t be entirely predictable in terms of how it occurs and it won’t be particularly smooth. I mean you’ll see different amounts. I think over the long run, it will be linear but not in any given quarter.

Then one final one if I may, on the workers’ comp area, interested to see some of these broader commercial pricing surveys suggest actually moderation in the decline, low single digit rather than mid-single digit maybe in the latter part of 2016. Curious the way you see workers’ comp shaping up, is the pricing pressure stabilizing; is this possibly be going back in the other directions, which is less negative or how do you see it?

Let me let Mike Boguski respond to that. Mike?

Sure. Thank you, Mark. Just to give you a kind of a broader perspective, from 2011 to 2015, our rates were up about 13.7% on a compounded basis; that was about $27 million of renewal rate increases over that period. We gave back 1.8% in the quarter really driven by competitive pressures in our operating territories. There is no question that it’s a competitive marketplace. We will continue to be disciplined approaching on individual account basis. The overall returns in the second quarter have been more stable than in first quarter. And so we are pleased with that. And again, it can’t be driven from any one quarter by larger accounts, let’s say experience moderate [ph] reductions and those types of competitive pressures. So we are keeping an eye on it. We certainly know that we’ve got to continue to evaluate medical trends, our frequency in severity and make the appropriate disciplined pricing decisions.

And to be clear, what was more stable in 2Q so far rather in 1Q?

April’s renewal rate position.

Our next question comes from Paul Newsome of Sandler O’Neill. Please go ahead.

Just wondering about lessons learned from the investment losses this last quarter and it sounds like you are not really thinking about making the major changes, but I would like to know if there was any sort of things you’ve learned from the process. And then the other thing is that --most of the things are important to do delay hedge funds and such. Can you talk about sort of the timing of how these things got reported given some types of delay and timing of the reports? And on losses thinking prospectively, in the next quarter we have what we are seeing with other companies were they -- hedge funds and the alternatives tend to be delayed by a quarter, so if we see continued losses in some of this books, do we see continued write-downs as well, in the next quarter?

I think it’s a lot fair, so let me try and take it that. As far as kind of any changes in our fundamental approach to our portfolio, it’s something that we look at kind of consistently. And we make small changes fairly regularly, but I don’t foresee right now it’s making any wholesale changes. We are a long-term investor and all the investments we make -- and while the oil and gas, there is a lot of shaking out in there and there will be some true losers some of this, we believe will see recovery over time. We do receive some of our information on a one quarter lag, from a number of our hedge funds. But, we also have the ability within some of those, we know what they hold and we are able to looking and kind of get current market information as indicator. On the energy, I guess -- maybe I separate two pieces, on they realize losses in the quarter, there is no delays in that, right. So that’s all bonds and the likes. So, there is no delay. It’s the equity and earnings of unconsolidated subsidiaries where we have delays. And so, yes, there is potential further declines there but there is also the potential for recoveries in some of those as well. We will see what the second quarter brings, but there is one quarter delay in some of funds that report in our equity and unconsolidated subs. But on the realized losses, the things that we impaired during the quarter, there is no such delay.

Our next question comes from Matt Carletti of JMP Securities. Please go ahead.

I just had a couple of questions. There has been a lot of talk about rate changes specifically in the medical liability field, whether in the quarter or kind of over the past several years. Can you give us some color on how much of terms and conditions change if at all; is that a kind of apples to apples sort of comparison or are terms and conditions also slowly weaken over that time frame as well?

On the physician business, the terms and conditions have not changed dramatically. The vast majority of the policies are pretty straight forward. On some of the larger accounts, you can always have situations where maybe deductables increase and when you get into that question of how much credit should be granted for the change in deductable or retention also certain provisions or the policies related to maybe reporting endorsement or tail coverage could be liberalized. But overall, I don’t think the physician policies have experienced a great deal of change in terms and conditions. On the facility side and particularly as you get into the larger facilities, I think that’s where we are seeing in the industry a good bit of liberalization, if you will, on terms and conditions, particularly with respect to the amount of coverage that’s being provided within -- or in excess of aggregate limits of retentions. If you write a larger hospital system for example, and let’s say your access of certain amount per claim and annual aggregate, as more and more exposure comes into this self insured programs or to the self insured layer, for example hospital acquirers and an others, yet another physician practice keeps going into that retention. But the aggregate limit that you’re sitting on top of really doesn’t change. So, you then can have sort of an unanticipated, if you’re not monitoring it carefully, an unanticipated increase in your exposure, because it’s more likely that the insured will have losses that exceeds the aggregates with more and more exposure being added. And that’s what we try to watch. Fortunately, we don’t have a lot of accounts that are in that situation, more of our business is either smaller deductible or even in some cases first dollar, but we’re pretty careful about that. Hopefully that answers your question.

It’s really helpful. It sounds like it’s more around the edges than anything that that’s a real, real headwind. Maybe just one other question and this relates to the Lloyd’s business. I mean it’s -- Lloyd’s broadly is probably as competitive a market as we’ve seen in over a decade, pretty accelerated a lot in last given 12 to 18 months, a broker facilities and things like. Duncan’s reputation certainly precedes them. But, can you give us a little color on what’s allowed them to kind of profitably grow the book? I know they are small, so they can be very nimble and what’s meaningful to them is huge in the grand scheme of the market, but any color would be helpful.

Sure. I think really what has allowed them to grow the business is really the reputation, not only of Duncan book but the other members of the team, whether it’s the property insurance, underwriter Ian Bridge or Chris Sharp on the property reinsurance side, and then the collective group that’s involved with Duncan on a casualty side, have long term relationships with the brokers and even more importantly with the buyers, the U.S. primary companies that see reinsurance business as well as the U.S. based NGA type business on the binding authorities. And I think if you looked at it, compared to the amount of business that this group collectively wrote prior to coming to the Syndicate, they are only writing a small fraction of that total right now. So, there’s a lot of selectivity and also lot of opportunity, as the market continues to develop and hopefully moves towards a harder portion of the cycle. But, I think really what they have done so far is to try to be very selective in terms of the business that they were previously writing and looking at the opportunities to get on to that business, in small ways, probably smaller percentage participations than any of them had previously, but with the opportunity to grow that. So, I think it really is the reputation and knowledge of the market that’s allowed them to do what they have done.

And Matt, I would just add to that that if that sounds a lot like the way we approach business that’s the very reason Duncan came to us to provide the majority capital backing for the Syndicate. We just spent a week with Duncan as part of our planning efforts and he takes a very long term view of the world, he takes a very disciplined approach to pricing; he is willing to walk away from business. He feels no top line pressure from us because we recognize that in Duncan’s business just as in ours the top line can be a disastrous problem for you, down the road, if you don’t approach it very disciplined. So, Duncan approaches the business the same way we do and we think it will pay off to him, the same way it has pay off for us historically.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Ryan Byrnes of Janney. Please go ahead.

Just for Howard, I think that the mass tort was a pressure again for the underlying loss ratio kind of second quarter row, last quarter was more of a pressure, but just want to see if you could give a little more color on that and see if there is any sort of geographical pattern or type of case that’s creating this pressure?

Not really a geographical pattern, the type of case or typical situation, I think talked about last time a little bit a well as is often arises out of some type of a billing investigation or governmental investigation, sometimes related to Medicare or Medicaid, sometimes related just to the justice department for example U.S. justice department getting involved looking at what they might believe to be overutilization of certain medical procedures, the most common one that’s been on the news a lot and all over the country relate has been the utilization of cardiac stents and when they are justified, when they are not, there have been any number of investigations around the country, and many of those I’m sure, even they were in hours, resulted in significant litigations, large numbers of claims being filled after the investigation itself gets into the news. But, it could be other medical procedures, medical devices as well. And in terms of what we did, we obviously talked about it in the fourth quarter call, we did a very in-depth evaluation of the mass tort scenarios and situations that we were involved with. And looking at it in the first quarter, while we really didn’t have anything significant in terms of new activity, just looking at experience, we expect that there are claims that we already have in our inventory on an individual basis that could end up as being part of mass tort litigation, once it starts to become clear what the claims involve. And that was the reason for making the provision that we did in the quarter.

And my last question, I think I heard you guys mention that the core specialty book may look to write some international I guess insurance and/or reinsurance going forward. And I realize you may not give too much color, but how would go about doing that especially on the primary side; do you guys currently have licenses to write in other jurisdictions?

No, we don’t. We do not. We’ve mentioned I think in the fairly limited amount of text that we gave you was that we’re looking into it right now. And that would mean that it could be on a license basis, it could be on a reinsurance basis, and it could also be on some type of -- even though, it’s not a correct terminology and excess and surplus lines on not admitted basis in certain countries. And really, we’re developing and trying to develop those opportunities right now.

Our next question is a follow-up from Amit Kumar of Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Just I guess going back to the overarching discussion on pricing and loss cause. And I guess what Ryan and Matt are also asking, ProAssurance has obviously been on the top value creators in the industry, the med metal piece has generated meaningful sort of returns from the redundancies which have diminished over time. Stan, if you look at sort of these various buckets, how should investors think about the transformed ProAssurance’s ROE profile versus the past? And I guess related to that, do these new opportunities come into ProAssurance from the dislocation, which would have much higher pricing? Do they sort of help for that that’s returned back to the prior return profile or are we just in a different place today?

We continue to price our healthcare business to the same targets we always have. The ROE question frankly is as dependent on the interest rate environment as it is anything else. And I don’t when that will change. And apparently nobody else in the world does either because we’ve all gotten it consistently wrong. But as long as we’re in the low interest rate environment, our investments will be affected by that. But we will continue to price the business the way we’ve always priced the business with the same targets in mind. As you know, we have capital beyond that that we need at the moment. Our board looks at capital very importantly. If you could somehow snap your fingers and right size the capital for the business we’re writing today that would have a significant impact on the ROE. The problem is, A, you can’t snap you figures and do that from a standpoint of liquidity and otherwise. And, B, our mission is to keep our eyes on the future as much as the present day and we have to manage the capital of the organization that will enable us to take advantage of the opportunities that will come to us, not just in the next quarter but in the next year and into the coming five years. So, all that plays into it and it does not lend itself to predictability. But I would say to you that an investor at ProAssurance can be assured that we’re going to continue to run the Company in a disciplined way that we will take a very measured and disciplined approach to our capital management and the past is prologue. And as you know since the current senior management team came together, we’ve almost doubled the equity in the organization while returning over $1 billion to shareholders through special dividends and buybacks. And altogether we think we have a capital management system in place that serves our investors and the organization well. But, there are a lot of different constituencies, a lot of different tensions, and we try to manage those with the long-term view toward optimizing the performance of the organization of the benefit of our shareholders.

And just finally, maybe a number’s question for Ned. When we were talking about the level of I guess materiality or cap load built in, have you discussed that number previously or how should we think about that number?

Amit, can you repeat your question? I am sorry.

When we were talking about the Lloyd’s piece, and we were talking about you had responded saying that if it was material, will talk about it, book it earlier. What is that level; every company has a threshold of sort of materiality where they are either preannounced or they break it out separately; have you talked about what that sort of level is or threshold is?

We have not, I think for us if it’s a number that we think would be meaningful to an investor then we would disclose it. We do not have a hard fast number. They would move the loss ratio few points in a quarter, we’d probably decide that that was material, but we don’t have a specific number in mind.

This concludes our question-answer-session. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Frank O’Neil for any closing remarks. Frank O’Neil: Thanks for Kerrie and thanks to everybody who joined us today. We will speak to you next in early August. Thank you.