Q&A WITH OUR CHAIRMAN & CEO AND PRESIDING DIRECTOR

Q. What are your thoughts as you reflect on the year 2015 at The Hartford?

Chris Swift: First and foremost, I am proud of our employees for their commitment to disciplined execution of our long-term strategy. Despite an increasingly competitive market and a less favorable investment environment, we delivered strong financial results and increased our top line momentum. The Hartford’s core earnings per diluted share* increased 15 percent; core earnings return on equity* rose to 9.2 percent from 8.4 percent; and book value per diluted share*⁽¹⁾ grew 7 percent. In addition, we returned $1.6 billion of capital to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. At the same time, we invested in the operating capabilities and talent that are making us a broader, deeper risk player and a more efficient, customer focused company that can deliver sustained, profitable growth.

Tom Renyi: I share Chris’s pride in the strong results delivered in 2015 and the commitment to executing on our long-term strategy. I know my fellow directors and I feel good about the collaborative dynamic we have with this management team on strategic initiatives, risk management, and attracting and retaining talent. We remain committed to protecting shareholder value through best-in-class governance practices and were very pleased to be recognized by the New York Stock Exchange in 2015 with an award for best governance, risk management and compliance program for a large cap company. We also continue to solicit and consider shareholder feedback on the company’s governance programs. One of the major themes that emerged from the company’s 2015 shareholder engagement program was the importance of a rigorous board evaluation process. We are responding to that feedback by further enhancing our disclosures and augmenting the evaluation process with individual director interviews on Board effectiveness led by me as the presiding director.

Q. Can you comment on your plans for 2016 and beyond?

Chris Swift: We’re focused squarely on our market leading Property & Casualty, Group Benefits and Mutual Funds businesses. Our strategy for continuing to achieve profitable growth is based on what we call the “five pillars.” The first pillar is product; we want to become a broader risk player by expanding our risk appetite and product offerings. The second pillar is distribution; our goal is to maximize the great distribution system that we enjoy today. Third is customer experience; putting the customer at the center of everything we do so that it is easier for the customer to interact with the company. The fourth pillar is operating capabilities, most notably improving technology and data analytics, areas where we’re making big investments. Finally, talent; we have over 17,000 very talented employees, but we're always looking to attract additional talent that would enhance our ability to compete in the marketplace. We believe that our focus on these areas will create long-term shareholder value by achieving continued improvement in our core earnings return on equity⁽²⁾ and generating total value creation, measured by dividends and growth in book value per diluted share⁽³⁾.

Tom Renyi: I would add that the Board continues to be very engaged in each of these strategic areas. At each Board meeting, we do a deep dive into one of the business segments and have a thoughtful discussion on strategy with that business’ senior leader. We also hold an annual meeting with the extended leadership team where we spend two days discussing and evaluating the strategic priorities. Through these discussions, the Board is able to gain a deeper understanding of the company’s long-term strategy, as well as test and challenge it as necessary. The result is a more refined strategic vision that is well understood and fully supported by the Board.

Q: What are your views on capital management?

Chris Swift: As we consider management of excess capital in the future, we will prioritize opportunities that accelerate our premium growth and operating capabilities. In the event we do not find opportunities that meet our strategic and financial objectives, we will continue to return excess capital to shareholders. As I mentioned, our primary focus continues to be on the profitable growth of our Property and Casualty, Group Benefits and Mutual Funds businesses, which have been strong generators of excess capital.

Tom Renyi: The Board has fully supported management’s thoughtful approach to excess capital deployment in recent years. As we look ahead, we agree that placing a high priority on revenue generating opportunities is a sound approach in today’s competitive environment.

Q. What are the challenges you expect to face in executing on your strategy and what are the risks that the Board is particularly focused on now?

Chris Swift: I’ll describe the challenges and let Tom address the risks. While we enter 2016 with a strong foundation, we are very mindful of the challenges we face. Consolidation across our industry; IT challenges and opportunities; potential disruptors such as big data and autonomous cars; and new capital entering the market, all contribute to increasing competition. Despite these headwinds, we are confident that with a stable management team and a clear strategy, we can maintain our underwriting discipline, expense control and capital flexibility at a time when some of our industry peers are facing strategic or financial challenges.

Tom Renyi: The Board spends substantial time on risk management. The Harford has an exceptional Enterprise Risk Management (“ERM”) organization that has developed cutting edge tools and processes for the identification, assessment, and, when appropriate, response to internal and external risks to the company's operations and business objectives. Like most companies, we are particularly focused on cyber risks. The Board receives two formal standing reports on cyber each year, but the topic comes up more frequently than that. In addition to modeling the financial impacts of potential cyber events on The Hartford under various scenarios, The Hartford retains third parties to conduct cyber-attack simulations. These simulations use real-world scenarios and help The Hartford identify and address potential vulnerabilities and enhance response protocols.

Q. What is The Hartford’s philosophy on community engagement and social responsibility?

Chris Swift: Character is central to our company’s vision to be exceptional. We want to be known not only for our financial performance and our value to customers, but also for being the best neighbor we can be. Improving our communities is a big part of that. In 2015, the company and our employees contributed more than $10 million to the community, giving through time, talent and donations. Our national philanthropic program, Communities with HART, reached more than 14,500 U.S. students in 2014-2015 as a title sponsor of Junior Achievement’s JA Company Program, which provides basic economic education for high school students, and dispersed 60 micro-finance loans to small business owners in four markets.

Tom Renyi: We’re also committed to environmental stewardship – as an employer, insurer, investor, property owner and responsible corporate citizen. Our efforts have won a number of accolades over the years that we have highlighted in our proxy statement disclosures, but those accolades don’t tell the full story of the incredible work and countless hours that go into our sustainability initiatives, which include everything from installing electric vehicle charging stations to support electric car use, switching to more fuel efficient fleet vehicles, reducing our paper consumption and even planting a community garden on The Hartford’s campus. Each year, the company puts together, and the Board reviews, a comprehensive sustainability report, which is available on The Hartford’s website and tells this larger story.

Q. Any final thoughts?

Tom Renyi: As stewards of the company, the Board is committed to helping The Hartford deliver superior returns for our shareholders and protecting that value over the long-term. I know I speak for the Board when I say what a privilege it is to serve this great company and its shareholders.

Chris Swift: We have a clear strategy, an experienced and stable management team, a powerful national distribution network, differentiated products and a brand that stands for strength and integrity. As we enter 2016, we remain focused on building strength as a larger player across a broader spectrum of risk, product, distribution and geography. In addition to the profitable growth of our businesses, I believe that our increased focus on the customer, process excellence and continuous improvement will drive greater operating efficiency and effectiveness and continue to create shareholder value in the future. I am proud of what we have accomplished in 2015 and I am confident in our ability to navigate this dynamic and competitive environment and continue to create shareholder value.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROXY SUMMARY

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider, and you should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting.

BOARD AND GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS

BOARD HIGHLIGHTS

As a result of shareholder feedback and an analysis of industry trends and best practices, in 2015 the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee took several important actions to enhance the company's corporate governance practices.

GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS

The Board and management regularly review best practices in corporate governance and modify our governance policies and practices as warranted. Our current best practices are highlighted below.

PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

EXECUTING ON OUR STRATEGY

2015 was a successful year for The Hartford. Despite an increasingly competitive market and a less favorable investment environment, we achieved strong financial results, continued to improve profitability and returned capital to our shareholders. Our financial strength, operating performance and strong balance sheet were recognized through rating upgrades by A.M. Best, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s. We achieved these financial results while investing in operating capabilities and talent that are making us a broader, deeper risk player and a more efficient and customer-focused company. Highlighted below are some of our key accomplishments in 2015. We entered 2016 with a strong foundation and with confidence that we can maintain our underwriting discipline, expense control and capital flexibility in the face of increased competition.

DELIVERING LONG-TERM SHAREHOLDER RETURN

The chart below illustrates key actions we have taken since 2013 to drive shareholder return.

2015 COMPENSATION HIGHLIGHTS

2015 NEO COMPENSATION SUMMARY

The table below reflects the 2015 compensation package (base salary, AIP award and long-term incentive (“LTI”) award) for each NEO. Although this table is not a substitute for the Summary Compensation Table information beginning on page 55, we believe it provides a simple and concise picture of compensation decisions made for the NEOs in 2015.

COMPENSATION BEST PRACTICES

The Compensation Committee regularly reviews best practices in executive compensation. Our current best practices and policies include the following:

BOARD AND GOVERNANCE MATTERS

GOVERNANCE PRACTICES AND FRAMEWORK

At The Hartford, we aspire to be an exceptional company celebrated for financial performance, character, and customer value. We believe that good governance practices and responsible corporate behavior are central to this vision and contribute to our long-term performance. Accordingly, the Board and management regularly review best practices in corporate governance and modify our governance policies and practices as warranted. Our current best practices include:

The fundamental responsibility of our directors is to exercise their business judgment to act in what they reasonably believe to be the best interests of The Hartford and its shareholders. The Board fulfills this responsibility within the general governance framework provided by the following documents:

• 

Articles of Incorporation

• 

By-laws

• 

Corporate Governance Guidelines (compliant with the listing standards of the NYSE and including guidelines for determining director independence and qualifications)

• 

Charters of the Board’s committees

• 

Code of Ethics and Business Conduct

• 

Code of Ethics and Business Conduct for Members of the Board of Directors

• 

Code of Ethics and Political Compliance

Copies of these documents are available on our investor relations website at http://ir.thehartford.com or upon request sent to our Corporate Secretary (see page 77 for details).

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

The Board annually reviews director independence under standards stated in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the listing standards of the NYSE, and other applicable legal and regulatory rules. In addition, per our Corporate Governance Guidelines, in order to identify potential conflicts of interest and to monitor and preserve the independence of those directors who meet the criteria for independence required under applicable law and by the NYSE, any director who wishes to become a director of another for-profit entity must obtain the pre-approval of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

The Board has affirmatively determined that all nominees for director other than Mr. Swift are independent.

BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

The roles of CEO and Chairman of the Board (“Chairman”) are held by Christopher Swift. Mr. Swift has held these roles since January 2015. In late 2014, prior to Mr. Swift assuming the role of Chairman, the Board deliberated extensively on the company’s board leadership structure, seeking feedback from shareholders and considering extensive corporate governance analysis. The Board concluded that the company's historical approach of combining the roles of CEO and Chairman while maintaining strong independent Board leadership continues to be the optimal leadership structure from which to carry out its oversight of the company's strategy, business operations and risk management. The CEO, as the principal leader of business operations, is uniquely positioned to identify and communicate key strategic and operational issues and the interests of the company’s stakeholders to the Board. In addition, Mr. Swift’s experience and qualifications enable him to fulfill the responsibilities of both roles and effectively lead the company with a unified vision.

The Board believes that other elements of the company’s corporate governance structure ensure that independent directors can perform their role as independent fiduciaries in the Board’s oversight of management and the company’s business, and minimize any potential conflicts that may result from combining the roles of CEO and Chairman. As noted above, all directors other than Mr. Swift are independent. Whenever the chairman of the Board is not independent, our Corporate Governance Guidelines require the independent directors to elect from among them a presiding director. At each regularly scheduled in-person meeting of the Board, the presiding director leads a meeting in executive session of the independent directors. In 2015, the independent directors met five times in executive session. The presiding director has the following responsibilities:

• 

presiding at all meetings of the Board at which the Chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors;

• 

serving as a liaison between the Chairman and CEO and the non-management directors;

• 

approving information sent to the Board;

• 

approving meeting agendas for the Board;

• 

approving meeting schedules to help ensure there is sufficient time for discussion of agenda items;

• 

calling and presiding over meetings of the independent directors; and

• 

if requested by shareholders, being available, when appropriate, for consultation and direct communication.

As part of its evaluation process, the Board has committed to undertaking an annual review of its board leadership structure to ensure it serves the best interests of shareholders and positions the company for future success.

BOARD TENURE AND REFRESHMENT

The Nominating Committee strives for a Board that includes a mix of varying perspectives and breadth of experience. Newer directors bring fresh ideas and perspectives, while longer tenured directors bring extensive knowledge of our complex operations. As part of its annual self-assessment process, the Board evaluates its overall composition, including director tenure. In addition, as noted above, the Board considers the independence of its members under applicable laws, regulations and the NYSE listing standards on an annual basis and does not believe the independence of any director nominee is compromised due to Board tenure. The Board has a formal director retirement policy at age 75, which contributes to Board renewal.

Among the current director nominees, four have fewer than five years of service, four nominees have between five and ten years of tenure, and the remaining three have over 10 years of service. The average tenure of the Board nominees is 7.6 years. Since 2010, we have added four female directors to the Board; they each bring fresh ideas and unique skills to the Board.

TALENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUCCESSION PLANNING

Talent development and succession planning have been and will continue to be one of the most important parts of the Board’s governance responsibilities. The CEO and independent directors conduct a review, at least annually, of succession and continuity plans for the CEO. Succession planning includes the identification and development of potential successors, policies and principles for CEO selection, and plans regarding succession in the case of an emergency or the retirement of the CEO. In addition, each year, the Compensation and Management Development Committee reviews succession and continuity plans for the CEO and each member of the executive leadership team that reports to the CEO. The Compensation and Management Development Committee’s charter requires that it discuss the results of these reviews with the independent directors and/or the CEO. However, given the importance of the topic and the engagement of the full Board on the issue, all directors are invited to these sessions. The full Board routinely meets with potential future leaders of the company.

In recent years, the Board's robust talent development and succession planning efforts have resulted in the seamless and well-managed transition of internal candidates into the company’s most senior roles.

COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD

The Board has four standing committees: the Audit Committee; the Compensation and Management Development Committee; the Finance, Investment and Risk Management Committee; and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Board has determined that all of the members of the Audit Committee, the Compensation and Management Development Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are “independent” directors within the meaning of the SEC’s regulations, the listing standards of the NYSE and our Corporate Governance Guidelines. Each committee conducts a self-evaluation of its performance on an annual basis.

The current members of the Board, the committees on which they serve and the primary functions of each committee are identified below:

THE BOARD’S ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

BOARD RISK OVERSIGHT

The Board as a whole has ultimate responsibility for risk oversight. It exercises its oversight function through its standing committees, each of which has primary risk oversight responsibility for all matters within the scope of its charter. Annually, each committee reviews and reassesses the adequacy of its charter and the Nominating Committee reviews all charters and recommends any changes to the Board for approval. The table below provides examples of each committee’s risk oversight responsibilities.

In addition to the risks identified above, the Finance, Investment and Risk Management Committee has responsibility for oversight of all risks that do not fall within the oversight responsibility of any other standing committee. The Audit Committee discusses with management policies with respect to risk assessment and risk management.

To assist the Board in discharging its oversight function, from time to time, the Board deems it advisable to form either a special committee or a working group to lead oversight of key strategic matters. Beginning in 2012, the Board established a Talcott Resolution Board Working Group (formerly known as the “Variable Annuity Working Group”) to discuss risks and mitigation strategies related to the company’s runoff life insurance and annuity businesses. This group, consisting of Robert Allardice, Julie Richardson, Virginia Ruesterholz and Charles Strauss, met five times in 2015.

At the management level, we have established an Enterprise Risk and Capital Committee (“ERCC”), which oversees the risk profile, capital management and risk management practices of the company. The ERCC reports to the Board primarily through the Finance, Investment and Risk Management Committee and also through interactions with the Audit Committee.

BUSINESS ETHICS AND CONDUCT

Striving to do the right thing every day and in every situation is fundamental to our culture, and we are proud that we have been recognized eight times, including in 2015, by The Ethisphere Institute as one of the “World’s Most Ethical Companies.” We have adopted a Code of Ethics and Business Conduct which applies to all of our employees, including our principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer. We have also adopted a Code of Ethics and Business Conduct for Members of the Board of Directors (the “Board Code of Ethics”) and a Code of Ethics and Political Compliance. These codes require that all of our employees and directors engage in honest and ethical conduct in performing their duties, provide guidelines for the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest, and provide mechanisms to report unethical conduct. Effective in 2015, directors began to certify compliance with the Board Code of Ethics.

We provide our employees with a comprehensive educational program, including courses on our Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, potential conflicts of interest, privacy and information protection, marketplace conduct, and ethical decision-making. Hotlines and online portals have been established for employees, vendors, or others to raise ethical concerns and employees are encouraged to speak up whenever they have an ethics-oriented question or problem.

SHAREHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

In the fall of 2015, as part of the annual shareholder outreach program begun in 2011, management contacted shareholders representing approximately 50% of shares outstanding and had discussions with shareholders representing approximately 26% of shares outstanding. More shareholders declined calls than prior years, which we believe reflects lack of concern with our governance and compensation programs. As a result of shareholder feedback and an analysis of industry trends and best practices, the Nominating Committee took several important actions to enhance the company's corporate governance practices.

ANNUAL BOARD SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The Nominating Committee oversees the Board evaluation process, leveraging a multi-step process to ensure an ongoing, rigorous assessment of the Board’s effectiveness. In response to shareholders’ interest for a robust and candid self-evaluation process, commencing in 2016, the Board augmented its self-evaluation process with individual one-on-one discussions led by the presiding director and a mid-year review of progress against goals.

In addition to the full Board evaluation process set forth above, the standing committees of the Board undertake separate self-assessments based on written questionnaires, generally between February and July.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND LOBBYING EXPENDITURES

The Nominating Committee reviews the company's political and lobbying policies and reports of political contributions and expenditures consistent with the company’s Code of Conduct. As part of this Code, we do not give corporate contributions to political candidates or parties and we require that no portion of our dues paid to trade associations be used for political contributions. We do allow the use of corporate resources for non-partisan political activity. Our website includes our policy for political contributions for political purposes and information on annual dues, assessments and contributions of $25,000 or more to trade associations and coalitions. To access our policy and report of 2015 contributions, please go to http://ir.thehartford.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” — “Governance Documents” — “Code of Ethics” — “Code of Ethics and Political Compliance.”

ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

The Hartford is a leader in sustainability and we are committed to operating in a socially responsible manner. As an eco-friendly insurance company, we recognize the clear consensus within the scientific community that climate change is of real and increasing concern. As an insurer, investor, employer, property owner and responsible corporate citizen, we are committed to understanding, managing and mitigating the risks associated with global climate change. In the past few years, we have undertaken a number of initiatives that exemplify our commitment, including installing electric vehicle charging stations to support electric car use, switching to more fuel efficient fleet vehicles, reducing our paper consumption and planting a community garden on The Hartford’s campus.

As a result of our efforts to operate in an environmentally and socially responsible manner, in 2015 the company received the following national recognitions:

To learn more about The Hartford’s corporate responsibility and sustainability efforts, please access our latest Sustainability Report, which presents our sustainability goals and provides data as well as examples of our efforts to achieve those goals, at https://www.thehartford.com/about-us/environment.

BOARD AND SHAREHOLDER MEETING ATTENDANCE

The Board met seven times during 2015 and each of the directors attended 75% or more of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board and the committees on which he or she served. The average attendance of all directors at Board and committee meetings was approximately 92%. We encourage our directors to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, and all of our directors attended the Annual Meeting of Shareholders held on May 20, 2015, except Ms. Mikells, who had a scheduling conflict.

SELECTION OF NOMINEES FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD

CRITERIA FOR NOMINATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Nominating Committee is responsible for identifying and recommending to the Board candidates for Board membership. At the request of the Nominating Committee, we have retained an outside search firm to identify prospective Board nominees. The Nominating Committee also considers candidates suggested by its members, other Board members, management and shareholders.

The Nominating Committee evaluates candidates against the standards and qualifications set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines as well as other relevant factors as it deems appropriate, including the current composition of the Board and each candidate’s:

• 

experience and its relevance to our business and objectives;

• 

financial and accounting expertise;

• 

ability to meet the required independence criteria and avoid conflicts of interest;

• 

personal and professional ethics, integrity and values; and

• 

availability to attend Board meetings and to devote appropriate time to preparation for such meetings.

In addition, the Nominating Committee considers the candidate’s potential contribution to the diversity of the Board. The Board believes that a diverse membership with varying perspectives and breadth of experience is an important attribute of a well-functioning board and will contribute positively to robust discussion at meetings. The Nominating Committee considers diversity in the context of the Board as a whole and takes into account considerations relating to race, gender, ethnicity and the range of perspectives that the directors bring to their Board work. As part of its consideration of prospective nominees, the Board and the Nominating Committee monitor whether the directors as a group meet The Hartford’s criteria for the composition of the Board, including diversity considerations.

BOARD NOMINATION PROCESS

SHAREHOLDER PROPOSED NOMINEES

The Nominating Committee will consider director candidates recommended by shareholders using the same criteria described above. Nominations for director candidates are closed for 2016. To recommend a candidate for our 2017 Annual Meeting, shareholders must deliver or mail their nomination submission to Donald C. Hunt, Vice President and Corporate Secretary, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, CT 06155. Nominations must be received by February 17, 2017 and must include the information specified in our By-laws, including, but not limited to, the name of the candidate, together with a brief biography, an indication of the candidate’s willingness to serve if elected, and evidence of the nominating shareholder’s ownership of our stock.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

We use a combination of cash and stock-based compensation to attract and retain qualified candidates to serve on the Board, as described below. Members of the Board who are employees of The Hartford or its subsidiaries are not compensated for service on the Board or any of its committees.

For the 2015-2016 Board service year, non-management directors received an annual cash retainer of $100,000 and a $160,000 annual equity grant of restricted stock units (“RSUs”).

ANNUAL CASH FEES

Cash compensation for the 2015-2016 Board service year beginning on May 20, 2015, the date of the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, and ending on May 18, 2016, the date of the 2016 Annual Meeting, is set forth below:

ANNUAL EQUITY GRANT

In 2015, directors received an annual equity grant of $160,000, payable solely in RSUs pursuant to The Hartford 2014 Incentive Stock Plan. Outstanding RSUs are credited with dividend equivalents equal to dividends paid to holders of our common stock.

The RSUs were granted on July 29, 2015, the first day of the scheduled trading window following the filing of our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015. The number of RSUs of each award was determined by dividing $160,000 by $47.67, the closing price of our common stock as reported on the NYSE on the date of the award. Directors who join the Board during the Board service year receive a pro rata portion of the annual RSU award.

The RSUs vest and will be distributed as common stock at the end of the Board service year, unless the director has elected to defer distribution until the end of Board service. Directors may not sell, exchange, transfer, pledge, or otherwise dispose of the RSUs awarded. Resignation from the Board will result in a forfeiture of all unvested RSUs at the time of such resignation unless otherwise determined by the Compensation and Management Development Committee.  However, RSUs will automatically vest upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) retirement from service on the Board in accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, (b) death of the director, (c) total disability of the director, as defined in the 2014 Incentive Stock Plan, (d) resignation by the director under cases of special circumstances where the Compensation and Management Development Committee, in its sole discretion, consents to waive the remaining vesting period, or (e) a “change of control,” as defined in the 2014 Incentive Stock Plan.

OTHER

We provide each director with $100,000 of group life insurance coverage and $750,000 of accidental death and dismemberment and permanent total disability coverage while he or she serves on the Board. We also reimburse directors for travel and related expenses they incur in connection with their Board and committee service.

STOCK OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES AND RESTRICTIONS ON TRADING

The Board has established stock ownership guidelines for each director to obtain, by the third anniversary of the director’s appointment to the Board, an ownership position in our common stock equal to five times his or her total annual cash retainer (including cash retainers paid for committee chair or presiding director responsibilities). All directors with at least three years of Board service met the stock ownership guidelines as of December 31, 2015.

Our insider trading policy prohibits all hedging activities by directors, and permits directors to engage in transactions involving The Hartford's equity securities only through (1) a pre-established trading plan pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or (2) during “trading windows” of limited duration following the filing with the SEC of our periodic reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q and following a determination by the company that the director is not in possession of material non-public information. In addition, our insider trading policy grants us the ability to suspend trading of our equity securities by directors.

DIRECTOR SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

We paid the following compensation to directors for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE—OUTSTANDING EQUITY

The following table shows the number and value of unvested equity awards outstanding as of December 31, 2015. The value of these unvested awards is calculated using a market value of $43.46, the NYSE closing price per share of our common stock on December 31, 2015. The numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole dollar or share.

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

The Board has adopted a Policy for the Review, Approval or Ratification of Transactions with Related Persons. This policy requires our directors and Section 16 executive officers to promptly disclose any actual or potential material conflict of interest to the Chair of the Nominating Committee and the Chairman of the Board for evaluation and resolution. If the transaction involves a Section 16 executive officer or an immediate family member of a Section 16 executive officer, the matter must also be disclosed to our General Auditor or Director of Compliance for evaluation and resolution.

We did not have any transactions requiring review under this policy during 2015.

COMMUNICATING WITH THE BOARD

Shareholders and other interested parties may communicate with directors by contacting the Corporate Secretary at The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, CT 06155. The Corporate Secretary will relay appropriate questions or messages to the directors. Only items related to the duties and responsibilities of the Board will be forwarded.

Anyone interested in raising a complaint or concern regarding accounting issues or other compliance matters directly with the Audit Committee may do so anonymously and confidentially by contacting EthicsPoint:

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

Eleven individuals will be nominated for election as directors at the Annual Meeting. The terms of office for each elected director will run until the next annual meeting of shareholders and until his or her successor is elected and qualified, or until his or her earlier death, retirement, resignation or removal from office.

In accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, each director has submitted a contingent, irrevocable resignation that the Board may accept if the director fails to receive more votes “for” than “against” in an uncontested election. In that situation, the Nominating Committee (or another committee comprised of at least three non-management directors) would make a recommendation to the Board about whether to accept or reject the resignation. The Board, not including the subject director, will act on this recommendation within 90 days from the date of the Annual Meeting, and we will disclose the Board's decision publicly promptly thereafter.

If for any reason a nominee should become unable to serve as a director, either the shares of common stock represented by valid proxies will be voted for the election of another individual nominated by the Board, or the Board will reduce the number of directors in order to eliminate the vacancy.

The Nominating Committee believes that each director nominee has an established record of accomplishment in areas relevant to our business and objectives, and possesses the characteristics identified in our Corporate Governance Guidelines as essential to a well-functioning and deliberative governing body, including integrity, independence and commitment. Other experience, qualifications and skills the Nominating Committee looks for include the following:

The Nominating Committee believes that our current Board is a diverse group whose collective experiences and qualifications bring a variety of perspectives to the oversight of The Hartford. All of our directors hold, or have held, senior leadership positions in large, complex corporations, educational institutions and/or charitable and not-for-profit organizations. In these positions, they have demonstrated their leadership, intellectual and analytical skills and gained deep experience in core disciplines significant to their oversight responsibilities on our Board. Their roles in these organizations also permit them to offer senior management a diverse range of perspectives about the issues facing a complex financial services company like The Hartford. Key qualifications, skills and experience our directors bring to the Board that are important to the oversight of The Hartford are identified and described below.

AUDIT MATTERS

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee oversees The Hartford's financial reporting process on behalf of the Board. Management has the primary responsibility for establishing and maintaining adequate internal financial controls, for preparing the financial statements and for the public reporting process. Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D&T”), our independent registered public accounting firm for 2015, is responsible for expressing opinions that (1) our consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, results of operations and cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and (2) we maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015.

In this context, the Audit Committee has:

(1) reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015 with management;

(2) discussed with D&T the matters required to be discussed by Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) Auditing Standard No. 16, Communications with Audit Committees; and

(3) received the written disclosures and the letter from D&T required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent accountant’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and has discussed with D&T the independent accountant’s independence.

Based on the review and discussions described in this report, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that the audited financial statements should be included in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for filing with the SEC.

Report Submitted: February 24, 2016

Members of the Audit Committee:

Robert B. Allardice, III, Chairman
Kathryn A. Mikells
Michael G. Morris
Julie G. Richardson
Charles B. Strauss

FEES OF THE INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The following table presents fees for professional services provided by Deloitte, the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, and their respective affiliates (collectively, the “Deloitte Entities”) for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014.

The Audit Committee reviewed the non-audit services provided by the Deloitte Entities during 2015 and 2014 and concluded that they were compatible with maintaining the Deloitte Entities’ independence.

AUDIT COMMITTEE PRE-APPROVAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

The Audit Committee has established policies requiring pre-approval of audit and non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm. These policies require that the Audit Committee pre-approve specific categories of audit and audit-related services annually.

The Audit Committee approves categories of audit services and audit-related services, and related fee budgets. For all pre-approvals, the Audit Committee considers whether such services are consistent with the rules of the SEC and the PCAOB on auditor independence. The independent registered public accounting firm and management report to the Audit Committee on a timely basis regarding the services rendered by, and actual fees paid to, the independent registered public accounting firm to ensure that such services are within the limits approved by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee’s policies require specific pre-approval of all tax services, internal control-related services and all other permitted services on an individual project basis.

As provided by its policies, the Audit Committee has delegated to its Chairman the authority to address any requests for pre-approval of services between Audit Committee meetings, up to a maximum of $100,000 for non-tax services and up to a maximum of $5,000 for tax services. The Chairman must report any pre-approvals to the full Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This section explains our compensation philosophy, summarizes our compensation programs and reviews compensation decisions for the Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) listed below. It also describes programs that apply to the CEO and all of his executive direct reports, other than senior executives directly supporting our mutual funds business who have an independent compensation program (collectively, “Senior Executives”).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DELIVERING STRONG FINANCIAL RESULTS

In 2015, The Hartford achieved strong financial results with core earnings increasing 7% over 2014 and core earnings return on equity rising to 9.2% from 8.4% in 2014. In our Property & Casualty (“P&C”) business, written premiums increased and the combined ratio before catastrophes and prior year development improved. In Group Benefits, we grew fully insured ongoing premiums and increased core earnings. Mutual Funds generated meaningful positive net flows while increasing sales and delivering solid relative fund performance. Talcott Resolution, our life and annuity run-off operations, returned $1.0 billion of capital to the holding company and continued to run-off its variable annuity and fixed annuity contract counts, further reducing the size of those exposures. Moreover, several of our ratings were upgraded by A.M. Best, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, an affirmation of our improved balance sheet, operating performance and financial flexibility. We accomplished these strong results despite a less favorable investment environment and an increasingly competitive market.

USING OUR FINANCIAL STRENGTH TO RETURN CAPITAL, REDUCE DEBT AND INVEST IN OUR BUSINESSES

Because of our strong financial position, in 2015, The Hartford was able to expand its 2014-2016 capital management plan, increasing the total authorization by $1.6 billion to $4.375 billion for equity repurchases and by $275 million to $1.431 billion for debt management actions. In 2015, we returned approximately $1.6 billion of capital to our shareholders in share repurchases and common stock dividends, reduced debt by $750 million, and, in September, increased the quarterly dividend rate by 17%.

We also deployed capital to invest in our businesses to drive profitable growth. We made significant investments in our systems, including new systems for P&C claims, Group Benefits enrollment and Middle Market underwriting, to continue to improve operating efficiency and agent and customer experience. In addition, we continued to attract strong talent to the company, helping to develop a broader and deeper risk profile. We also made marketing investments that have increased the visibility of our brand, including our sponsorship of Major League Baseball, which fully rolls out in 2016, as well as the extension of our 20+ year relationship with U.S. Paralympics to 2020.

FOCUSING ON THE FUTURE

We have a strong portfolio of businesses and capital flexibility. We remain focused on organically growing each of our businesses while maintaining underwriting discipline, and will tightly manage expenses to support ongoing investment in the capability and talent needed to be a top-of-mind company for the products we offer. We will explore acquisitions that can help us accelerate our profitable growth strategy and that meet our financial and strategic objectives. Through strong business performance and effective capital management that returns excess capital to shareholders, we are confident in our ability to create long-term shareholder value. As we look at 2016 and beyond, our primary financial goals are to:

• 

continue to expand our core earnings ROE, excluding Talcott Resolution;

• 

efficiently manage the run-off and return of capital from Talcott Resolution, while maintaining its capital self-sufficiency;

• 

redeploy the excess capital generated by our businesses to create greater shareholder value; and

• 

generate average total value creation of at least 9% annually, as measured by common dividends paid plus growth in book value per share, excluding accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”).

With our strategic and financial transformation essentially complete, The Hartford has a strong foundation and, despite increasing competition, we are confident we can maintain underwriting discipline, expense control and capital flexibility.

DELIVERING LONG-TERM SHAREHOLDER RETURN

The chart below illustrates key actions we have taken since 2013 to drive shareholder return.

2015 COMPENSATION HIGHLIGHTS

The table below reflects the 2015 compensation package (base salary, AIP award and long-term incentive (“LTI”) award) for each NEO. Although this table is not a substitute for the Summary Compensation Table information beginning on page 55, we believe it provides a simple and concise picture of compensation decisions made for the NEOs in 2015.

“SAY-ON-PAY” RESULTS

OVERVIEW OF COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Our executive compensation program is designed to promote long-term shareholder value creation and support our strategy by: (1) encouraging profitable growth consistent with prudent risk management, (2) attracting and retaining key talent, and (3) appropriately aligning pay with short- and long-term performance.

COMPENSATION BEST PRACTICES

PAY MIX

NEO compensation is weighted towards variable compensation (annual and long-term incentives), where actual amounts earned may differ from targeted amounts based on company and individual performance. Each NEO has a target total compensation opportunity that is assessed annually by the Compensation Committee (and by the independent directors, in the case of the CEO) to ensure alignment with our compensation objectives and market practice.

As the following charts show, approximately 89% of CEO target annual compensation and approximately 84% of other NEO target annual compensation are variable based on performance, including stock price performance.

COMPONENTS OF COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Each Senior Executive has a target total compensation opportunity comprised of both fixed (base salary) and variable (annual and long-term incentives) compensation. In addition, Senior Executives are eligible for benefits available to employees generally. This section describes the different components of our compensation program for Senior Executives, and lays out the framework in which compensation decisions are made. For a discussion of the 2015 compensation decisions made within this framework, see Pay for Performance beginning on page 49 and 2015 Named Executive Officers Compensation and Performance beginning on page 50.

BASE SALARY

Each Senior Executive’s base salary is reviewed by the Compensation Committee (and, in the case of the CEO, the independent directors) annually, upon promotion, or following a change in job responsibilities, based on market data, internal pay equity and level of responsibility, expertise and performance.

ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN (“AIP”) AWARDS

Our employees, including the Senior Executives, are eligible to earn cash awards under the AIP based on company and individual performance. Each employee has a target AIP opportunity that is set as a percentage of base salary. At the conclusion of each year, the Compensation Committee establishes an annual AIP funding level that is derived through a holistic review of company performance. The AIP funding level is the main driver in determining the amount of individual AIP awards. The Compensation Committee uses the following three-step process to determine individual Senior Executive AIP awards. Actual company performance results for 2015 are described on pages 49 and 50.

Financial performance against target is the primary factor in determining the AIP funding level. Core earnings is the basis for measuring financial performance. The Compensation Committee selected core earnings because:

• 

the Committee felt it best reflects annual operating performance;

• 

it is a metric investment analysts commonly look to when evaluating annual performance;

• 

all employees can impact it; and

• 

it is prevalent among peers.

At the beginning of each year, the Compensation Committee approves a definition of “Compensation Core Earnings” that specifies in advance certain items that will be adjusted at the end of that year, such as accounting changes, catastrophe losses above or below budget, or unusual or non-recurring items. The Compensation Committee excludes the impact of these items because it believes they do not reflect the performance of our underlying businesses, and it wants to ensure that management is held accountable for performance it controls and is neither advantaged nor disadvantaged for the effect of certain items outside its control. The Compensation Committee’s definition of Compensation Core Earnings for 2015 is provided in Appendix A. The Compensation Committee also sets a Compensation Core Earnings target, which is consistent with the annual operating plan reviewed by the Board prior to the start of the fiscal year. The 2015 AIP financial target is set forth under 2015 AIP Performance on page 49. If the company performs at target, the formulaic AIP funding level is 100% of target.

In addition to setting a target, the Compensation Committee establishes a threshold performance level, below which no AIP awards are earned, as well as a maximum funding level for performance significantly exceeding target. Actual company performance in relation to target results in a formulaic AIP funding level, as illustrated below.

Once the formulaic AIP funding level is determined, the Compensation Committee reviews a number of qualitative factors, including achievements that cannot be measured formulaically or are not yet evident in our financial performance. As a result of its qualitative review, the Compensation Committee may, if it deems appropriate, adjust the formulaic AIP funding level up or down to arrive at an AIP funding level more commensurate with company performance in light of factors than cannot be captured by an exclusively formulaic approach. Among the qualitative factors the Compensation Committee considers are the following broad performance categories:

The Compensation Committee believes that grounding the AIP funding level in formulaic financial performance against targets, but retaining the flexibility to adjust it to reflect qualitative factors, allows it to arrive at a final AIP funding level that (1) best reflects holistic performance, (2) is aligned with shareholder interests, and (3) provides

the ability to attract, retain and incentivize employees who contribute to the long-term value of the company. Historically, the Compensation Committee has used the qualitative review to both increase and decrease the AIP funding level to levels more commensurate with overall company performance, but, in recent years, has determined no adjustments were necessary to achieve that result.

For each Senior Executive, the company AIP funding level multiplied by the Senior Executive’s target AIP opportunity produces an initial AIP award amount. Where appropriate, the Committee (and, in the case of the CEO, the independent directors) may adjust the Senior Executive’s initial AIP award amount up or down based on his or her performance in leading a business or function. The adjustments made based on 2015 performance are described beginning on page 49.

LONG-TERM INCENTIVE (“LTI”) AWARDS

The LTI program is designed to encourage share ownership among Senior Executives, further aligning their interests with those of shareholders to promote shareholder value creation. LTI awards are granted on an annual basis following an assessment of individual performance, potential, and market data. 2015 LTI awards for Senior Executives consist of performance shares (50% of the award value) and stock options (50% of the award value). This mix provides LTI awards that appropriately blend actual stock price performance, comparative stock price performance, and actual operating performance.

Performance Shares (50% of LTI Award)

Performance shares are designed to reward and retain Senior Executives by offering them the opportunity to receive shares of our stock upon achieving pre-determined performance criteria. The performance shares have a three-year performance period and are settled in common stock based on the following metrics:

Shares of common stock ranging from 0% to 200% of the number of performance shares granted may be payable depending upon the performance achieved.

Compensation Core ROE

For 50% of the performance share award, payouts at the end of the performance period, if any, will depend upon achieving an average annual Compensation Core ROE over a three-year measurement period. The Compensation Committee's definition of Compensation Core ROE for 2015 performance share awards is provided in Appendix A. Threshold, target and maximum Compensation Core ROE values were established in February 2015 based on the company’s 2015-2017 operating plan. There is no payout for performance below threshold. Achieving target payout of 100% requires meaningful growth in core earnings, increased profitability and prudent capital

management. The maximum Compensation Core ROE payout of 200% reflects ambitious, longer-term goals that require performance significantly above and beyond target.

Peer-Relative TSR

For 50% of the performance share award, payouts at the end of the performance period, if any, will be made based on company TSR performance relative to a Performance Peer Group at the end of the three-year performance period. The Performance Peer Group represents industry specific public companies against which we benchmark performance for compensation purposes. While there is some overlap, the Performance Peer Group is distinct from the Corporate Peer Group, which includes mutual companies where financial data is not publicly available, as well as companies that compete with us for talent. The Compensation Committee believes that the Performance Peer Group should be limited to companies that (1) publish results against which to measure our performance, and (2) are competing investment choices in the capital markets. The Compensation Committee reviews the composition of the Performance Peer Group annually.

For each company in the Performance Peer Group, TSR will be measured using a 20-day stock price average at the beginning and the end of the performance period in order to smooth out any volatility. As illustrated in the graph below, there would be no payout for performance below the 30^th percentile, 50% payout for performance at the 30^th percentile, 100% payout for median performance, and 200% payout if our TSR performance ranks ahead of all companies in the Performance Peer Group.