UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

Commission File No. 1-32630

Fidelity National Title Group, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

      Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.     Yes o          No þ

      Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.     Yes o          No þ

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.     Yes þ          No o

      Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K, or any amendment to this Form 10-K.     o

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer (See definitions of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.)

Large accelerated filer o          Accelerated filer o          Non-accelerated filer þ

      Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).     Yes o          No þ

      The aggregate market value of the shares of the Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of December 31, 2005 was $696,787,961.

      As of March 1, 2006, there were 31,147,357 shares of Class A common stock and 143,176,041 shares of Class B common stock outstanding.

      The information in Part III hereof is incorporated herein by reference to the registrant’s Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, to be filed within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year that is the subject of this Report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORM 10-K

PART I

      Fidelity National Title Group, Inc. (“FNT” or the “Company”) is the largest title insurance company in the United States. Our title insurance underwriters — Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title, Ticor Title, Security Union Title and Alamo Title — together issued approximately 30.5% of all title insurance policies issued nationally during 2004, as measured by premiums. Our title business consists of providing title insurance and escrow and other title-related products and services arising from the real estate closing process. Our operations are conducted on a direct basis through our own employees who act as title and escrow agents and through independent agents. In addition to our independent agents, our customers are lenders, mortgage brokers, attorneys, real estate agents, home builders and commercial real estate developers. We do not focus our marketing efforts on the homeowner.

History

      The predecessors to FNT have primarily been title insurance companies, some of which have been in operation since the late 1800s. Many of these title insurance companies have been acquired in the last two decades. In 1984, our parent company, Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (“FNF”) acquired a controlling interest in Fidelity National Title Insurance Company. During the 1990s, FNF acquired Alamo Title, Nations Title Inc., Western Title Company of Washington and First Title Corp. In 2000, FNF completed the acquisition of Chicago Title Corp., creating the largest title insurance organization in the world. In 2004, FNF acquired American Pioneer Title Insurance Company, which now operates under our Ticor Title brand. Chicago Title had previously acquired Security Union Title in 1987 and Ticor Title Insurance Company in 1991. Our businesses have historically been operated as wholly-owned subsidiaries of FNF until October 2005, when FNF distributed to its shareholders a minority interest in FNT. (See “Recent Developments” below.)

Competitive Strengths

      We believe that our competitive strengths include the following:

Strategy

      Our strategy in the title insurance business is to maximize operating profits by increasing our market share and managing operating expenses throughout the real estate business cycle. To accomplish our goals, we intend to:

Recent Developments

      On September 26, 2005, FNF received all regulatory approvals required to contribute to FNT all of the legal entities that are reflected in our financial statements presented in Item 8. On that date, FNF declared a dividend to its stockholders of record as of October 6, 2005 which resulted in a distribution on October 17, 2005, of 17.5% of its interest in FNT, which represents the title insurance segment of FNF. Prior to October 17, 2005, FNT was a wholly-owned subsidiary of FNF. On October 17, 2005, FNF distributed to its stockholders 0.175 shares of FNT Class A common stock for each share of FNF common stock held on the record date (the “Distribution”). FNF beneficially owns 100% of the FNT Class B common stock representing an 82.5% ownership interest. As of December 31, 2005, there were 31.1 million shares outstanding of Class A common stock, which has one vote per share, and 143.2 million shares outstanding of Class B common stock, which has ten votes per share. As of December 31, 2005, FNF controls 97.9% of the voting rights of FNT.

      In connection with the Distribution, we issued two $250 million intercompany notes payable to FNF (the “Mirror Notes”), with terms that mirrored FNF’s existing $250 million 7.30% public notes due in August 2011 and $250 million 5.25% public notes due in March 2013. Proceeds from the issuance of the 7.30% FNF notes due 2011 were used by FNF to repay debt incurred in connection with the acquisition of our subsidiary, Chicago Title, and the proceeds from the 5.25% FNF notes due 2013 were used for general corporate purposes. Following the issuance of the Mirror Notes, we filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4, pursuant to which we offered to accept the outstanding FNF notes in exchange for FNT notes we issued having substantially the same terms. On January 18, 2006, we completed these exchange offers and received $241,347,000 in aggregate principal amount of FNF’s 7.30% Notes due August 15, 2011, and the entire $250,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of FNF’s 5.25% Notes due March 15, 2013. The FNF notes received by us in the exchange were subsequently delivered to FNF in partial redemption of the 7.30% Mirror Note due August 15, 2011, and in full redemption of the 5.25% Mirror Note due March  15, 2013. In order to reflect the partial redemption of the 7.30% Mirror Note due August 15, 2011, the original note has been replaced with an identical Mirror Note with a principal balance of $8,653,000, which reflects the unredeemed portion of the original Mirror Note.

      On October 17, 2005, we also entered into a credit agreement in the amount of $400 million. On October 24, 2005, we borrowed $150 million under this facility and paid it to FNF in satisfaction of a $150 million intercompany note issued by one of the Company’s subsidiaries to FNF in August 2005. Later in the fourth quarter, we repaid $50 million of this amount.

Our Recent Acquisitions

      On August 1, 2005, we acquired Service Link, L.P. (“Service Link”), a national provider of centralized mortgage and residential real estate title and closing services to major financial institutions and institutional lenders. The acquisition price was approximately $110.2 million in cash.

      On March 22, 2004, we acquired American Pioneer Title Insurance Company (“APTIC”) for $115.2 million in cash. APTIC is a title insurance underwriter licensed in 45 states with significant agency operations and computerized title plant assets in the state of Florida. APTIC now operates under our Ticor Title brand.

Title Insurance

      Market for title insurance. The title insurance market in the United States is large and has grown in the last 10 years. According to Demotech, Inc (“Demotech”), total operating income for the entire U.S. title insurance industry grew from $4.8 billion in 1995 to $15.5 billion in 2004. Growth in the industry is closely tied to various macroeconomic factors, including, but not limited to, growth in the gross national product, inflation, interest rates and sales of and prices for new and existing homes, as well as the refinancing of previously issued mortgages.

      Most real estate transactions consummated in the U.S. require the use of title insurance by a lending institution before a transaction can be completed. Generally, revenues from title insurance policies are directly correlated with the value of the property underlying the title policy, and appreciation in the overall value of the real estate market helps drive growth in total industry revenues. Industry revenues are also driven by changes in interest rates, which affect demand for new mortgage loans and refinancing transactions.

      The U.S. title insurance industry is concentrated among a handful of industry participants. According to Demotech, the top five title insurance companies accounted for 90.2% of net premiums collected in 2004. Over 40 independent title insurance companies accounted for the remaining 9.8% of net premiums collected in 2004. Over the years, the title insurance industry has been consolidating, beginning with the merger of Lawyers Title Insurance and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance in 1998 to create LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc., followed by FNF’s acquisition of Chicago Title in March 2000. Consolidation has created opportunities for increased financial and operating efficiencies for the industry’s largest participants and should continue to drive profitability and market share in the industry.

      Title Insurance Policies. Generally, real estate buyers and mortgage lenders purchase title insurance to insure good and marketable title to real estate and priority of the lien. A brief generalized description of the process of issuing a title insurance policy is as follows:

      In a real estate transaction financed with a mortgage, virtually all real property mortgage lenders require their borrowers to obtain a title insurance policy at the time a mortgage loan is made. This lender’s policy insures the lender against any defect affecting the priority of the mortgage in an amount equal to the outstanding balance of the related mortgage loan. An owner’s policy is typically also issued, insuring the buyer against defects in title in an amount equal to the purchase price. In a refinancing transaction, only a lender’s policy is generally purchased because ownership of the property has not changed. In the case of an all-cash real estate purchase, no lender’s policy is issued but typically an owner’s title policy is issued.

      Title insurance premiums paid in connection with a title insurance policy are based on (and typically a percentage of) either the amount of the mortgage loan or the purchase price of the property insured. Title insurance premiums are due in full at the closing of the real estate transaction. The lender’s policy generally terminates upon the refinancing or resale of the property.

      The amount of the insured risk or “face amount” of insurance under a title insurance policy is generally equal to either the amount of the loan secured by the property or the purchase price of the property (subject to adjustment if the policy includes inflation adjustment provisions). The title insurer is also responsible for the cost of defending the insured title against covered claims. The insurer’s actual exposure at any given time, however, generally is less than the total face amount of policies outstanding because the coverage of a lender’s policy is reduced and eventually terminated as a result of payment of the mortgage loan. Because of these factors, the total liability of a title underwriter on outstanding policies cannot be precisely determined.

      Title insurance companies typically issue title insurance policies directly through branch offices or through title agencies which are subsidiaries of the title insurance company, and indirectly through independent third party agencies unaffiliated with the title insurance company. Where the policy is issued through a branch or wholly-owned subsidiary agency operation, the title company typically performs or directs the search, and the premiums collected are retained by the title company. Where the policy is issued through an independent agent, the agent generally performs the search (in some areas searches are performed by approved attorneys), examines the title, collects the premium and retains a majority of the premium. The remainder of the premium is remitted to the title company as compensation, part of which is for bearing the risk of loss in the event a claim is made under the policy. The percentage of the premium retained by an agent varies from region to region and is sometimes regulated by the states. The title company is obligated to pay title claims in accordance with the terms of its policies, regardless of whether the title company issues policies through its direct operations or through independent agents.

      Prior to issuing policies, title insurers and their agents attempt to reduce the risk of future claim losses by accurately performing searches and examinations. A title company’s predominant expense relates to such searches and examinations, the preparation of preliminary title reports, policies or commitments and the maintenance of title “plants,” which are indexed compilations of public records, maps and other relevant historical documents. Claim losses generally result from errors made in the title search and examination process and from hidden defects such as fraud, forgery, incapacity, or missing heirs of the property.

      Residential real estate business results from the construction, sale, resale and refinancing of residential properties, while commercial real estate business results from similar activities with respect to properties with a business or commercial use. Commercial real estate title insurance policies insure title to commercial real property, and generally involve higher coverage amounts and yield higher premiums. Residential real estate transaction volume is primarily affected by macroeconomic and seasonal factors while commercial real estate transaction volume is affected primarily by fluctuations in local supply and demand conditions for commercial space.

      Direct and Agency Operations. We provide title insurance services through our direct operations and through independent title insurance agents who issue title policies on behalf of our title insurance companies. Our title insurance companies determine the terms and conditions upon which they will insure title to the real property according to their underwriting standards, policies and procedures.

      Direct Operations. In our direct operations, the title insurer issues the title insurance policy and retains the entire premium paid in connection with the transaction. Our direct operations provide the following benefits:

      We have approximately 1,500 offices throughout the U.S. primarily providing residential real estate title insurance. Our commercial real estate title insurance business is operated almost exclusively through our direct operations. We maintain direct operations for our commercial title insurance business in all the major real estate markets including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Seattle and Houston.

      Agency Operations. In our agency operations, the search and examination function is performed by an independent agent or the agent may purchase the search and examination from us. In either case, the agent is responsible to ensure that the search and examination is completed. The agent thus retains the majority of the title premium collected, with the balance remitted to the title underwriter for bearing the risk of loss in the event that a claim is made under the title insurance policy. Independent agents may select among several title underwriters based upon their relationship with the underwriter, the amount of the premium “split” offered by the underwriter, the overall terms and conditions of the agency agreement and the scope of services offered to the agent. Premium splits vary by geographic region. Our relationship with each agent is governed by an agency agreement defining how the agent issues a title insurance policy on our behalf. The agency agreement also sets forth the agent’s liability to us for policy losses attributable to the agent’s errors. An agency agreement is usually terminable without cause upon 30 days’ notice or immediately for cause. In determining whether to engage or retain an independent agent, we consider the agent’s experience, financial condition and loss history. For each agent with whom we enter into an agency agreement we maintain financial and loss experience records. We also conduct periodic audits of our agents.

      Fees and Premiums. One method of analyzing our business is to examine the level of premiums generated by direct and agency operations. The following table presents the percentages of our title insurance premiums generated by direct and agency operations:

      The premium for title insurance is due in full when the real estate transaction is closed. We recognize title insurance premium revenues from direct operations upon the closing of the transaction, whereas premium revenues from agency operations include an accrual based on estimates of the volume of transactions that have closed in a particular period for which premiums have not yet been reported to us. The accrual for agency premiums is necessary because of the lag between the closing of these transactions and the reporting of these policies to us by the agent, and is based on estimates utilizing historical information.

      Geographic Operations. Our direct operations are divided into approximately 244 profit centers consisting of more than 1,500 direct offices. Each profit center processes title insurance transactions within its geographical area, which is usually identified by a county, a group of counties forming a region, or a state, depending on the management structure in that part of the country. We also transact title insurance business

through a network of over 10,000 agents, primarily in those areas in which agents are the more prevalent title insurance provider.

      The following table sets forth the approximate dollar and percentage volumes of our title insurance premium revenue by state.

      Escrow and Other Title Related Fees. In addition to fees for underwriting title insurance policies, we derive a significant amount of our revenues from escrow and other title-related services, including closing services. The escrow and other services provided by us include all of those typically required in connection with residential and commercial real estate purchase and refinance activities. Escrow and other title-related fees represented approximately 18.4% and 17.7% of our revenues for 2005 and 2004, respectively. Escrow and other title-related fees are primarily generated by our direct title operations and increases or decreases in the amount of revenue we receive from these services are closely related to increases or decreases in revenues from our direct title operations.

      Reinsurance and Coinsurance. In a limited number of situations we limit our maximum loss exposure by reinsuring certain risks with other title insurers under agent fidelity, excess of loss and case-by-case reinsurance agreements. We also earn a small amount of additional income, which is reflected in our direct premiums, by assuming reinsurance for certain risks of other title insurers. Reinsurance agreements provide generally that the reinsurer is liable for loss and loss adjustment expense payments exceeding the amount retained by the ceding company. However, the ceding company remains primarily liable in the event the reinsurer does not meet its contractual obligations.

      We also use coinsurance in our commercial title business to provide coverage in amounts greater than we would be willing or able to provide individually. In coinsurance transactions, each individual underwriting company issues a separate policy and assumes a portion of the overall total risk. As a coinsurer we are only liable for the portion of the risk we assumed.

Sales and Marketing

      We market and distribute our title and escrow products and services to customers in the residential and commercial market sectors of the real estate industry through customer solicitation by sales personnel. Although in many instances the individual homeowner is the beneficiary of a title insurance policy, we do not focus our marketing efforts on the homeowner. We actively encourage our sales personnel to develop new business relationships with persons in the real estate community, such as real estate sales agents and brokers, financial institutions, independent escrow companies and title agents, real estate developers, mortgage brokers and attorneys who order title insurance policies for their clients. While our smaller, local clients remain important, large customers, such as national residential mortgage lenders, real estate investment trusts and developers have become an increasingly important part of our business. The buying criteria of locally based clients differ from those of large, geographically diverse customers in that the former tend to emphasize personal relationships and ease of transaction execution, while the latter generally place more emphasis on

consistent product delivery across diverse geographical regions and ability of service providers to meet their information systems requirements for electronic product delivery.

Losses and Reserves

      While most other forms of insurance provide for the assumption of risk of loss arising out of unforeseen events, title insurance serves to protect the policyholder from risk of loss from events that predate the issuance of the policy. As a result, claim losses associated with issuing title policies are less expensive when compared to many other types of insurance. The maximum amount of liability under a title insurance policy is generally the face amount of the policy plus the cost of defending the insured’s title against an adverse claim.

      Reserves for claim losses are established based upon known claims, as well as losses incurred but not yet reported to us based upon historical experience and other factors, including industry trends, claim loss history, legal environment, geographic considerations, expected recoupments and the types of policies written. We also reserve for losses arising from escrow, closing and disbursement functions due to fraud or operational error.

      Although most claims against title insurance policies are reported relatively soon after the policy has been issued, claims may be reported many years later. By their nature, claims are often complex, vary greatly in dollar amounts and are affected by economic and market conditions and the legal environment existing at the time of settlement of the claims. Estimating future title loss payments is difficult because of the complex nature of title claims, the long periods of time over which claims are paid, significantly varying dollar amounts of individual claims and other factors.

      A title insurance company can minimize its losses by having strict quality control systems and underwriting standards in place. These controls increase the likelihood that the appropriate level of diligence is conducted in completing a title search so that the possibility of potential claims is significantly mitigated. In the case of independent agents who conduct their own title searches, the agency agreement between the agent and the title insurance underwriter gives the underwriter the ability to proceed against the agent when a loss arises from a flawed title search. We take an aggressive stance in pursuing claims against independent agents for losses that arise from fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices or other wrongful acts commonly referred to as “bad faith.”

      Courts and juries sometimes award damages against insurance companies, including title insurance companies, in excess of policy limits. Such awards are typically based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices or other wrongful acts. The possibility of such bad faith damage awards may cause us to experience increased costs and difficulty in settling title claims.

      The maximum insurable amount under any single title insurance policy is determined by statutorily calculated net worth. The highest self-imposed single policy maximum insurable amount for any of our title insurance subsidiaries is $475.0 million.

Investment Policies and Investment Portfolio

      Our investment policy is designed to maintain a high quality portfolio, maximize income and minimize interest rate risk. We also make investments in certain equity securities in order to take advantage of perceived value and for strategic purposes. Various states regulate what types of assets qualify for purposes of capital and surplus and statutory unearned premium reserves. We manage our investment portfolio and do not utilize third party investment managers.

      As of December 31, 2005 and 2004, the carrying amount, which approximates the fair value, of total investments was $3.3 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively.

      We purchase investment grade fixed maturity securities, selected non-investment grade fixed maturity securities and equity securities. The securities in our portfolio are subject to economic conditions and normal market risks and uncertainties.

      The following table presents certain information regarding the investment ratings of our fixed maturity portfolio at December 31, 2005 and 2004.

      The following table presents certain information regarding contractual maturities of our fixed maturity securities at December 31, 2005:

      Expected maturities may differ from contractual maturities because certain borrowers have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties.

      Our equity securities at December 31, 2005 and 2004 consisted of investments in various industrial and miscellaneous other industry groups. At December 31, 2005, the Company held equity securities with a total cost of $185,651 and an aggregate fair value of $176,987. At December 31, 2004, the Company held equity securities with a total cost of $108,574 and an aggregate fair value of $115,070. There are no significant investments in banks, trusts and insurance companies at December 31, 2005 or 2004.

      Other long-term investments as of December 31, 2005 amounted to $21.0 million and consisted primarily of equity investments.

      Short-term investments, which consist primarily of securities purchased under agreements to resell, commercial paper and money market instruments, which have an original maturity of one year or less, are carried at amortized cost, which approximates fair value. As of December 31, 2005, short-term investments amounted to $645.1 million.

      Our investment results for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 were as follows:

Technology

      To meet the changing business and technology needs of our customers, we continually invest in our applications and services. This investment includes maintenance and enhancement of existing software applications and the development of new and innovative software applications

Competition

      The title insurance industry is highly competitive, with the top five insurance companies accounting for 90.2% of net premiums collected in 2004 according to Demotech. The number and size of competing companies varies in the different geographic areas in which we conduct our business. In our principal markets, competitors include other major title underwriters such as The First American Corporation, LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc., Old Republic International Corporation and Stewart Information Services Corporation, as well as numerous smaller title insurance companies and independent agency operations at the regional and local level. These smaller companies may expand into other markets in which we compete. Also, the removal of regulatory barriers might result in new competitors entering the title insurance business, and those new competitors may include diversified financial services companies that have greater financial resources than we do and possess other competitive advantages. Competition among the major title insurance companies, expansion by smaller regional companies and any new entrants with alternative products could affect our business operations and financial condition.

      Competition in the title insurance industry is based primarily on expertise, service and price. In addition, the financial strength of the insurer has become an increasingly important factor in decisions relating to the purchase of title insurance, particularly in multi-state transactions and in situations involving real estate-related investment vehicles such as real estate investment trusts and real estate mortgage investment conduits.

      The title insurance industry has also experienced periods of consolidation. We expect that, from time to time, we may evaluate opportunities for the acquisition of books of business or of title insurance companies or other complementary businesses as a going concern, for business combinations with other concerns and for the provision of insurance related advisory services to third parties. There can be no assurance, however, that any suitable business opportunity will arise.

Regulation

      Our insurance subsidiaries, including title insurers, underwritten title companies and insurance agencies, are subject to extensive regulation under applicable state laws. Each of the insurance underwriters is subject to a holding company act in its state of domicile, which regulates, among other matters, the ability to pay dividends and enter into transactions with affiliates. The laws of most states in which we transact business establish supervisory agencies with broad administrative powers relating to issuing and revoking licenses to transact business, regulating trade practices, licensing agents, approving policy forms, accounting practices, financial practices, establishing reserve and capital and surplus as regards policyholders (“capital and surplus”) requirements, defining suitable investments for reserves and capital and surplus and approving rate schedules.

      Pursuant to statutory accounting requirements of the various states in which our title insurers are domiciled, these insurers must defer a portion of premiums earned as an unearned premium reserve for the protection of policyholders and must maintain qualified assets in an amount equal to the statutory requirements. The level of unearned premium reserve required to be maintained at any time is determined by statutory formula based upon either the age, number of policies, and dollar amount of policy liabilities underwritten, or the age and dollar amount of statutory premiums written. As of December 31, 2005, the combined statutory unearned premium reserve required and reported for our title insurers was $1,303.8 million. In addition to statutory unearned premium reserves, each of our insurers maintains surplus funds for policyholder protection and business operations.

      Our title insurers are regulated by the insurance regulatory authority in their respective state of domicile, as well as that of each state in which it is licensed. The insurance commissioners of their respective states of domicile regulate our title insurance subsidiaries. Regulatory financial examinations are conducted generally by regulatory authorities at three-year intervals, and certain of these examinations are currently ongoing.

      Under the statutes governing insurance holding companies in most states, insurers may not enter into various transactions, including certain sales, reinsurance agreements and service or management contracts with their affiliates unless the regulatory authority of the insurer’s state of domicile has received notice at least 30 days prior to the intended effective date of such transaction and has not objected to or has approved, the transaction within the 30 day period.

      As a holding company with no significant business operations of our own, we depend on dividends or other distributions from our subsidiaries as the principal source of cash to meet our obligations, including the payment of interest on, and repayment of, principal of any debt obligations. The payment of dividends or other distributions to us by our title insurers is regulated by the insurance laws and regulations of their respective states of domicile. In general, an insurance company subsidiary may not pay an “extraordinary” dividend or distribution unless the applicable insurance regulator has received notice of the intended payment at least 30 days prior to payment, and has not objected to or has approved, the payment within the 30-day period. In general, an “extraordinary” dividend or distribution is statutorily defined as a dividend or distribution that, together with other dividends and distributions made within the preceding 12 months, exceeds the greater of:

      The laws and regulations of some jurisdictions also prohibit an insurer from declaring or paying a dividend except out of its earned surplus or require the insurer to obtain prior regulatory approval. During 2006, our directly owned title insurers can pay dividends or make distributions to us of approximately $289.9 million without prior regulatory approval; however, insurance regulators have the authority to prohibit the payment of ordinary dividends or other payments by our title insurers to us (such as a payment under a tax sharing agreement or for employee or other services) if they determine that such payment could be adverse to our policyholders.

      The combined statutory capital and surplus of the Company’s title insurers was $852.2 million and $887.2 million as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The combined statutory earnings of the Company’s title insurers were $400.4 million, $371.0 million and $477.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      As a condition to continued authority to underwrite policies in the states in which our title insurers conduct their business, they are required to pay certain fees and file information regarding their officers, directors and financial condition.

      Pursuant to statutory requirements of the various states in which our title insurers are domiciled, they must maintain certain levels of minimum capital and surplus. Each of our title insurers complied with the minimum statutory requirements as of December 31, 2005.

      Our underwritten title companies are also subject to certain regulation by insurance regulatory or banking authorities, primarily relating to minimum net worth. Minimum net worth of $7.5 million, $2.5 million, $3.0 million and $0.4 million is required for Fidelity National Title Company, Fidelity National Title Company of California, Chicago Title Company and Ticor Title Company of California, respectively. All of our companies were in compliance with their respective minimum net worth requirements at December 31, 2005.

      We receive inquiries and requests for information from state insurance departments, attorneys general and other regulatory agencies from time to time about various matters relating to our business. Sometimes these take the form of civil investigative subpoenas. We attempt to cooperate with all such inquiries. From time to time, we are assessed fines for violations of regulations or other matters or enter into settlements with such authorities which require us to pay money or take other actions. For a discussion of certain pending matters, see “Legal Proceedings.”

      Before a person can acquire control of a U.S. insurance company, prior written approval must be obtained from the insurance commissioner of the state in which the insurer is domiciled. Prior to granting approval of an application to acquire control of a domestic insurer, the state insurance commissioner will consider such factors as the financial strength of the applicant, the integrity and management of the applicant’s board of directors and executive officers, the acquirer’s plans for the insurer’s board of directors and executive officers, the acquirer’s plans for the future operations of the domestic insurer and any anti-competitive results that may arise from the consummation of the acquisition of control. Generally, state statutes provide that control over a domestic insurer is presumed to exist if any person, directly or indirectly, owns, controls, holds with the power to vote, or holds proxies representing, 10% or more of the voting securities of the domestic insurer (in the state of Florida, where one of our subsidiaries is domiciled, control may be presumed to exist upon acquisition of 5% or more of the insurer’s voting securities). Because a person acquiring 10% or more of our common shares would indirectly control the same percentage of the stock of our title insurers, the insurance change of control laws would likely apply to such a transaction (and any acquisition of 5% or more would require filing a disclaimer of control with, or obtaining a change of control approval from, the State of Florida).

      The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) has adopted an instruction requiring an annual certification of reserve adequacy by a qualified actuary. Because all of the states in which our title insurers are domiciled require adherence to NAIC filing procedures, each such insurer, unless it qualifies for an exemption, must file an actuarial opinion with respect to the adequacy of its reserves.

      Since we are governed by both state and federal governments and the applicable insurance laws are constantly subject to change, it is not possible to predict the potential effects of any laws or regulations that may become more restrictive in the future or if new restrictive laws will be enacted.

Ratings

      Our title insurance subsidiaries are regularly assigned ratings by independent agencies designed to indicate their financial condition and/or claims paying ability. The ratings agencies determine ratings by quantitatively and qualitatively analyzing financial data and other information. Our title subsidiaries include Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title, Ticor Title, Security Union Title and Alamo Title. The insurer financial strength/stability ratings of our principal title insurance subsidiaries are listed below:

      The ratings of Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”), Moody’s Investors Services (“Moody’s”), A.M. Best Company (“A.M. Best”), Fitch Ratings, Ltd. (“Fitch”), Demotech, and LACE Financial Corporation

(“LACE”) described above are not designed to be, and do not serve as, measures of protection or valuation offered to investors. These financial strength ratings should not be relied on with respect to making an investment in our securities. In connection with the announcement of the distribution of our common stock to stockholders of FNF and the increased financial leverage that would result therefrom, S&P placed the “A-” financial strength rating on CreditWatch negative, Moody’s affirmed the “A3” financial strength rating although the rating outlook was changed to negative and Fitch placed the financial strength rating on Rating Watch Negative. In addition, A.M. Best downgraded the financial strength ratings of our principal insurance subsidiaries to “A-”. After the announcement of the merger between FNF’s subsidiary, Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (“FIS”) and Certegy Inc., S&P revised its CreditWatch to positive from negative, Moody’s changed its rating outlook to stable from negative and Fitch revised its rating watch to stable from negative. Our ratings are likely to continue to be affected in the future by credit events that may occur with respect to FNF and its other operations.

Employees

      As of December 31, 2005, we had approximately 19,500 full-time equivalent employees. We believe our employee relations are generally satisfactory. None of our employees are subject to collective bargaining agreements.

Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

      The information contained in this Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements about our beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are based on management’s beliefs, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to, management. Because such statements are based on expectations as to future economic performance and are not statements of fact, actual results may differ materially from those projected. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

      Important factors that may affect these projections or expectations include, but are not limited to:

      All of these factors are difficult to predict and many are beyond our control. Accordingly, while we believe these forward-looking statements to be reasonable, there can be no assurance that they will

approximate actual experience or that expectations derived from them will be realized. When used in our documents or oral presentations, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “objective,” “projection,” “forecast,” “goal,” or similar words are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

Additional Information

      Our website address is www.fntg.com. We make available free of charge on or through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission. However, the information found on our website is not part of this or any other report.

      In addition to the normal risks of business, we are subject to significant risks and uncertainties, including those listed below and others described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or incorporated herein. Any of the risks described herein could result in a significant or material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

      Title insurance revenue is closely related to the level of real estate activity which includes sales, mortgage financing and mortgage refinancing. The levels of real estate activity are primarily affected by the average price of real estate sales, the availability of funds to finance purchases and mortgage interest rates. While both the volume and the average price of residential real estate transactions have recently experienced record highs, we do not expect these trends to continue. Further, interest rates have risen from record low levels in 2003, resulting in reductions in the level of mortgage refinancings and total mortgage originations in 2004 and again in 2005.

      We have found that residential real estate activity generally decreases in the following situations:

      If either the level of real estate activity or the average price of real estate sales declines, it could adversely affect our title insurance revenues. The Mortgage Bankers Association currently projects residential mortgage production in 2006 to be $2.24 trillion, which would represent a 19.2% decline relative to 2005. The MBA further projects that the 19.2% decrease will result from purchase transactions declining from $1.49 billion in 2005 to $1.43 billion in 2006, or 3.6%, and refinancing transactions dropping from $1.29 billion to $0.81 billion, or 37.1%.

      Our insurance businesses are subject to extensive regulation by state insurance authorities in each state in which we operate. These agencies have broad administrative and supervisory power relating to the following, among other matters:

      Most states also regulate insurance holding companies like us with respect to acquisitions, changes of control and the terms of transactions with our affiliates. State regulations may impede or impose burdensome conditions on our ability to increase or maintain rate levels or on other actions that we may want to take to enhance our operating results. In addition, we may incur significant costs in the course of complying with regulatory requirements. We cannot assure you that future legislative or regulatory changes will not adversely affect our business operations. See “Business — Regulation.”

      We get inquiries and requests for information from state insurance departments, attorneys general and other regulatory agencies from time to time about various matters relating to our business. Sometimes these take the form of civil investigative subpoenas. We attempt to cooperate with all such inquiries. From time to time, we are assessed fines for violations of regulations or other matters or enter into settlements with such authorities which require us to pay money or take other actions. These fines may be significant and actions we are required to take may adversely affect our business. For a discussion of certain pending or potential matters, see “Item 3 - Legal Proceedings.”

      California is the largest source of revenue for the title insurance industry and, in 2005, California-based premiums accounted for 45.1% of premiums earned by our direct operations and 1.8% of our agency premium revenues. In the aggregate, California accounted for approximately 21% of our total title insurance premiums for 2005. A significant part of our revenues and profitability are therefore subject to our operations in California and to the prevailing regulatory conditions in California. Adverse regulatory developments in California, which could include reductions in the maximum rates permitted to be charged, inadequate rate increases or more fundamental changes in the design or implementation of the California title insurance regulatory framework, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

      Our subsidiaries are subject to extensive rate regulation by the applicable state agencies in the jurisdictions in which they operate. Title insurance rates are regulated differently in the various states, with some states requiring our subsidiaries to file rates before such rates become effective and some states promulgating the rates that can be charged. In almost all states in which our subsidiaries operate, our rates must not be excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory.

      The California Department of Insurance (“CDI”) has recently undertaken an examination of the levels of pricing and competition in the title insurance industry in California, with a view to determining whether prices are too high and, if so, implementing rate reductions. The CDI commissioned an analysis of the title insurance and escrow industry in California, and a report was prepared by an economist at the request of the California Insurance Commissioner. The report concluded that a reasonable degree of competition does not exist in the markets for title insurance and escrow services in California, and the CDI began holding hearings

in January 2006 to address the report’s findings. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the CDI’s examination or whether it will result in new legislation, regulation or restrictions on its title insurance operations in California.

      California is the largest source of revenue for the title insurance industry, including for us.

      Insurance regulators in New York, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Texas have also announced similar inquiries (or other reviews of title insurance rates) and other states could follow. State regulators may use their rate-regulation oversight authority to take steps to cause us to reduce our rates, or block our attempts to increase our rates. Such actions by regulators could adversely affect our operating results.

      Further, U.S. Representative Oxley, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, recently asked the Government Accountability Office (the GAO) to investigate the title insurance industry. Representative Oxley stated that the Committee is concerned about payments that certain title insurers have made to developers, lenders and real estate agents for referrals of title insurance business. See Item 3 — “Legal Proceedings.” Representative Oxley asked the GAO to examine, among other things, the foregoing relationships and the levels of pricing and competition in the title insurance industry. We are unable to predict the outcome of this inquiry or whether it will adversely affect our business or results of operations.

      Ratings have always been an important factor in establishing the competitive position of insurance companies. Our insurance companies are rated by S&P, Moody’s, Fitch, A.M. Best, Demotech, and LACE. Ratings reflect the opinion of a rating agency with regard to an insurance company’s or insurance holding company’s financial strength, operating performance, and ability to meet its obligations to policyholders and are not evaluations directed to investors. In connection with the announcement of the Distribution, S&P placed our A-financial strength rating on CreditWatch negative, Moody’s affirmed its A3 financial strength rating although the rating outlook was changed to negative and Fitch placed its financial strength rating on Rating Watch Negative. In addition, A.M. Best downgraded the financial strength ratings of our principal insurance subsidiaries to A-. After the announcement of a merger between Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (“FIS”) and Certegy Inc. (“Certegy”), S&P revised its CreditWatch to positive from negative, Moody’s changed its rating outlook to stable from negative and Fitch revised its rating watch to stable from negative. S&P later upgraded our financial strength rating to A and revised its rating watch to stable. Our ratings are likely to continue to be affected in the future by credit events that may occur with respect to FNF and its other operations, including non-title insurance operations. Our ratings are subject to continued periodic review by those entities and the continued retention of those ratings cannot be assured. If our ratings are reduced from their current levels by those entities, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

      We are a holding company whose primary assets are the securities of our operating subsidiaries. Our ability to pay dividends is dependent on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other payments to us. If our operating subsidiaries are not able to pay dividends or other funds to us, we may not be able to declare and pay dividends to our stockholders.

      Our title insurance subsidiaries must comply with state and federal laws which require them to maintain minimum amounts of working capital, surplus and reserves and place restrictions on the amount of dividends that they can distribute to us. Compliance with these laws will limit the amounts our regulated subsidiaries can dividend to us. During 2006, our directly owned title insurers can pay dividends or make distributions to us of approximately $289.9 million without prior regulatory approval.

      The title insurance industry is highly competitive. According to Demotech, the top five title insurance companies accounted for 90.2% of net premiums collected in 2004. Over 40 independent title insurance companies accounted for the remaining 9.8% of the market. The number and size of competing companies varies in the different geographic areas in which we conduct our business. In our principal markets, competitors include other major title underwriters such as The First American Corporation, LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc., Old Republic International Corporation and Stewart Information Services Corporation, as well as numerous smaller title insurance companies and independent agency operations at the regional and local level. These smaller companies may expand into other markets in which we compete.

      Also, the removal of regulatory barriers might result in new competitors entering the title insurance business, and those new competitors may include companies that have greater financial resources than we do and possess other competitive advantages. Competition among the major title insurance companies, expansion by smaller regional companies and any new entrants with alternative products could affect our business operations and financial condition.

      From time to time, we adjust the rates we charge in a particular state as a result of competitive conditions in that state. For example, in response to recent rate reductions by certain of our competitors, we recently adjusted our rate structure in California for refinancings. This change could have an adverse impact on our results of operations, although its ultimate impact will depend, among other things, on the volume and mix of our future refinancing business in that state.

      We expect the title insurance industry to remain highly competitive. Our failure to remain competitive may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

      Our historical financial statements may not be indicative of our future performance as a consolidated, stand-alone company. We were incorporated on May  24, 2005 in anticipation of the distribution of shares of our Class A Common Stock to FNF stockholders. On September 26, 2005, FNF contributed to us the various FNF subsidiaries that conduct our business. Our historical financial statements reflect assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses directly attributable to our operations, which include transactions between us and FNF and other affiliated entities. They exclude certain of our expenses that have been allocated to other operations of FNF and of FIS, and they reflect an allocation to us of a portion of the compensation of certain senior officers and other personnel of FNF who, following the Distribution, are no longer our employees but who have historically provided services to us. These allocations are expected to in general continue under the corporate services agreements we entered into in connection with the Distribution. Further, our financial statements reflect transactions with related parties, which were not negotiated on an arms-length basis. Our historical financial statements do not reflect the debt or interest expense we might have incurred if we had been a stand-alone entity. In addition, we will incur other expenses, not reflected in our historical financial statements, as a result of being a separate publicly traded company. As a result of these and other factors, our historical financial statements do not necessarily reflect what our financial position and results of operations would have been if we had been operated as a stand-alone public entity during the periods covered, and may not be indicative of future results of operations or financial position.

      As long as FNF continues to hold a majority of the voting power of our outstanding stock, FNF will be able to elect all of our directors and determine the outcome of all corporate actions requiring stockholder approval. FNF currently owns 100% of our Class B Common Stock, representing approximately 82.5% of our outstanding common stock, and 97.9% of all voting power of our outstanding common stock. In order to consolidate the results of our operations for tax purposes and to get favorable tax treatment of dividends paid

by us, FNF is required to own at least 80% of our outstanding common stock and as a result FNF may be unlikely to decrease its ownership below 80%. The Class B Common Stock entitles FNF to ten votes per share on all matters submitted to stockholders until converted to Class A Common Stock.

      While it controls us, FNF will control decisions with respect to:

      We have agreed that, without FNF’s consent, we will not issue any shares of our stock if as a result FNF would no longer be able to consolidate our results for tax purposes, receive favorable treatment with respect to dividends paid by us or, if it so desired, distribute the remainder of its FNT stock to its stockholders in a tax-free distribution. These limits will generally enable FNF to continue to own at least 80% of our outstanding common stock. Among other things, this control could make it more difficult for us to raise capital by selling stock or to use our stock as currency in acquisitions.

      Conflicts may arise between entities remaining with FNF and us as a result of our ongoing agreements and the nature of our respective businesses. We will seek to manage any potential conflicts through our agreements with FNF and other FNF entities and through oversight by independent members of our board of directors. However, there can be no assurances that such measures will be effective or that we will be able to resolve all potential conflicts.

      Mr. Foley is the chairman of our board of directors, the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors of FNF, and the chairman of the board of directors of FIS. As an officer and director of multiple companies, he has obligations to us and to such other companies and may have conflicts of interest with respect to matters potentially or actually involving or affecting our and their respective businesses. As an officer and director of multiple companies, he may also have conflicts of time with respect to his multiple responsibilities. If his duties to any of these companies require more time than Mr. Foley is able to allot, then his oversight of that company’s activities could be diminished.

      Some of our executive officers and directors own substantial amounts of FNF and FIS stock and stock options because of their relationships with FNF and FIS. Such ownership could create or appear to create potential conflicts of interest when our directors and officers are faced with decisions that involve FNF, FIS or any of their respective subsidiaries. Substantially all members of our board of directors beneficially own shares of FNF common stock. Further, our senior officers hold interests in FNF and in some cases FIS that were obtained through various employee benefit and compensation plans while at FNF. In addition, officers of FNF will provide services from time to time to us. These persons also hold equity interests in FNF and FIS.

      Because FNF and FIS may engage in some of the same activities in which we engage, there is a risk that we may be in direct competition with FNF and FIS over business activities and corporate opportunities. To address these potential conflicts, we have adopted a corporate opportunity policy that has been incorporated into our certificate of incorporation. Among other things, this policy provides that FNF has no duty not to compete with us or to provide us with corporate opportunities of which it becomes aware. The policy also limits the situations in which one of our directors or officers, if also a director or officer of FNF, must offer corporate opportunities to us of which such individual becomes aware. These provisions may limit the corporate opportunities of which we are made aware or which are offered to us. Moreover, our ability to take advantage of certain corporate opportunities may be limited by FNF’s voting control over us.

      None.

      The majority of our offices are leased from third parties. We own the remaining offices. As of December 31, 2005, we leased office space and related facilities as follows:

      In addition, six locations are leased in Canada. We believe our properties are adequate for our business as presently conducted.

      In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending and threatened litigation matters related to our operations, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. We believe that no actions, other than those listed below, depart from customary litigation incidental to our business. As background to the disclosure below, please note the following:

      Several class actions are pending in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida alleging improper premiums were charged for title insurance. The cases allege that the named defendant companies failed to provide notice of premium discounts to consumers refinancing their mortgages, and failed to give discounts in refinancing transactions in violation of the filed rates. The actions seek refunds of the premiums charged and punitive damages. Recently the court’s order denying class certification in one of the Ohio actions was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Company petitioned the Supreme Court of Ohio for review, but the court declined to accept jurisdiction over the matter. The Company intends to vigorously defend the actions.

      A class action in California alleges that the Company violated state law by giving favorable discounts or rates to builders and developers for escrow fees and requiring purchasers to use Chicago Title Insurance Company for escrow services. The action seeks refunds of the premiums charged and additional damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.

      A class action in Missouri alleges that the Company has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing documents in conjunction with its business of insuring title and closing real estate transactions. The action seeks refunds of the payments and treble damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.

      A shareholder derivative action was filed in Florida on February 11, 2005 alleging that FNF directors and certain executive officers breached their fiduciary and other duties, and exposed FNF to potential fines, penalties and suits in the future, by permitting so called contingent commissions to obtain business. FNF and the directors and executive officers named as defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on June 3, 2005. The plaintiff abandoned his original complaint and responded to the motions by filing an amended complaint on July 13, 2005, and FNF, along with the directors and executive officers named as defendants, has responded to the amended complaint. Recently, the magistrate judge granted the defendant’s motion to stay

discovery. The amended complaint repeats the allegations of the original complaint and adds allegations about “captive reinsurance” programs, which FNF continues to believe were lawful. These “captive reinsurance” programs have been the subject of investigations by several state departments of insurance and attorneys general. FNT is obligated to indemnify FNF in connection with this matter under the separation agreement that was entered into in connection with the distribution of FNT common stock and the Company intends to vigorously defend this action.

      None of the cases described above includes a statement as to the dollar amount of damages demanded. Instead, each of the cases includes a demand in an amount to be proved at trial. Two of the Ohio cases state that the damages per class member are less than the jurisdictional limit for removal to federal court.

      The Company receives inquiries and requests for information from state insurance departments, attorneys general and other regulatory agencies from time to time about various matters relating to its business. Sometimes these take the form of civil investigative subpoenas. The Company attempts to cooperate with all such inquiries. From time to time, the Company is assessed fines for violations of regulations or other matters or enters into settlements with such authorities which require the Company to pay money or take other actions.

      In the Fall of 2004, the California Department of Insurance began an investigation into reinsurance practices in the title insurance industry. In February 2005 FNF was issued a subpoena to provide information to the California Department of Insurance as part of its investigation. This investigation paralleled similar inquiries of the NAIC, which began earlier in 2004. The investigations have focused on arrangements in which title insurers would write title insurance generated by realtors, developers and lenders and cede a portion of the premiums to a reinsurance company affiliate of the entity that generated the business.

      The Company recently negotiated a settlement with the California Department of Insurance in 2005 with respect to that department’s inquiry into these arrangements, which the Company refers to as captive reinsurance arrangements. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will refund approximately $7.7 million to those consumers whose California property was subject to a captive reinsurance arrangement and paid a penalty of $5.6 million. The Company also recently entered into similar settlements with 26 other states, in which the Company agreed to refund a total of approximately $1.2 million to policyholders. Other state insurance departments and attorneys general and HUD also have made formal or informal inquiries of the Company regarding these matters.

      The Company has been cooperating and intends to continue to cooperate with the other ongoing investigations. The Company has discontinued all captive reinsurance arrangements. The total amount of premiums the Company ceded to reinsurers was approximately $10 million over the existence of these agreements. The remaining investigations are continuing and the Company currently is unable to give any assurance regarding their consequences for the industry or for FNT.

      Additionally, the Company has received inquiries from regulators about its business involvement with title insurance agencies affiliated with builders, realtors and other traditional sources of title insurance business, some of which the Company participated in forming as joint ventures with its subsidiaries. These inquiries have focused on whether the placement of title insurance with the Company through these affiliated agencies is proper or an improper form of referral payment. Like most other title insurers, the Company participates in these affiliated business arrangements in a number of states. The Company recently entered into a settlement with the Florida Department of Financial Services under which it agreed to refund approximately $3 million in premiums received though these types of agencies in Florida and paid a fine of $1 million. The other pending inquiries are at an early stage and as a result the Company can give no assurance as to their likely outcome.

      Since 2004, the Company’s subsidiaries have received civil subpoenas and other inquiries from the New York State Attorney General (the “NYAG”), requesting information about their arrangements with agents and customers and other matters relating to, among other things, rates, rate calculation practices, use of blended rates in multi-state transactions, rebates, entertainment expenses, and referral fees. Title insurance rates in New York are set by regulation and generally title insurers may not charge less than the established

rate. Among other things, the NYAG has asked for information about an industry practice (called “blended rates” and “delayed blends”) in which discounts on title insurance on properties outside New York are sometimes given in connection with multi-state commercial transactions in which one or more of the properties is located in New York or when a credit is given subsequent to the transaction. The NYAG is also reviewing the possibility that our Chicago Title subsidiary may have provided incorrect data in connection with rate-setting proceedings in New York and in connection with reaching a settlement of a class action suit over charges for title insurance issued in 1996 through 2002. The New York State Insurance Department has also joined the NYAG in the latter’s wide-ranging review of the title insurance industry and the Company. The Company can give no assurance as to the likely outcome of these investigations, including but not limited to whether they may result in fines, monetary settlements, reductions in title insurance rates or other actions, any of which could adversely affect us. The Company is cooperating fully with the NYAG and New York State Insurance Department inquiries into these matters.

      Further, U.S. Representative Oxley, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, recently asked the Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) to investigate the title insurance industry. Representative Oxley stated that the Committee is concerned about payments that certain title insurers have made to developers, lenders and real estate agents for referrals of title insurance business. Representative Oxley asked the GAO to examine, among other things, the foregoing relationships and the levels of pricing and competition in the title insurance industry. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this inquiry or whether it will adversely affect the Company’s business or results of operations.

      Finally, the California Department of Insurance has recently begun to examine levels of pricing and competition in the title insurance industry in California, with a view to determining whether prices are too high and if so, implementing rate reductions. New York, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Texas insurance regulators have also announced similar inquiries (or other reviews of title insurance rates) and other states could follow. At this stage, the Company is unable to predict what the outcome will be of this or any similar review. See “Risk Factors — State regulation of the rates we charge for title insurance could adversely affect our results of operations.”

      None.

PART II

      Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “FNT”. The following table shows, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices of our common stock, as reported by the New York Stock Exchange, and the amounts of dividends per share declared on our common stock.

      On March 1, 2006, the last reported sale price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange was $23.51 per share. As of March 1, 2006, we had approximately 354 stockholders of record.

      Our current dividend policy anticipates the payment of quarterly dividends in the future. The declaration and payment of dividends will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will be dependent upon our future earnings, financial condition and capital requirements. Our ability to declare and pay dividends is also subject to our compliance with the financial covenants contained in our credit agreement and further described below. On February 8, 2006, our Board of Directors declared an increase in our quarterly cash dividend to $0.29 per share, a 16% increase over the previous cash dividend of $0.25 per share.

      Since we are a holding company, our ability to pay dividends will depend largely on the ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends to us, and the ability of our title insurance subsidiaries to do so is subject to, among other factors, their compliance with applicable insurance regulations. As of December 31, 2005, $1.9 billion of our net assets are restricted from dividend payments without prior approval from the Departments of Insurance in the states where our title insurance subsidiaries are domiciled. During 2006, our directly owned title insurance subsidiaries can pay dividends or make distributions to us of approximately $289.9 million without prior approval. In addition, our ability to declare dividends is subject to restrictions under our credit agreement. We do not believe the restrictions contained in our credit agreement will, in the foreseeable future, adversely affect our ability to pay cash dividends at the current dividend rate.

      The selected financial data as of December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003 and for each of the years in the four-year period ended December 31, 2005 has been derived from our consolidated and combined financial statements and related notes, which have been audited by KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm. The selected financial data as of December 31, 2002 and as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 has been derived from our unaudited combined financial statements. The information set forth below should be read in conjunction with the consolidated and combined financial statements and related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this Form 10-K. Our selected financial data has been prepared from the results of the operations transferred to us and gives effect to allocations of certain corporate expenses to and from FNF. Our selected financial data may not be indicative of our future performance and does not necessarily reflect what our financial position and results of operations would have been had we operated as a stand-alone entity during the periods presented. Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior year amounts to conform with the 2005 presentation.

Selected Quarterly Financial Data

      The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements and the Notes thereto and Selected Financial Data included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Overview

      We are the largest title insurance company in the United States. Our title insurance underwriters — Fidelity National Title, Chicago Title, Ticor Title, Security Union Title and Alamo Title — together issue all of the Company’s title insurance policies in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Canada, and Mexico. Our title business consists of providing title insurance and escrow

and other title-related products and services arising from the real estate closing process. Our operations are conducted on a direct basis through our own employees who act as title and escrow agents and through independent agents. In addition to our independent agents, our customers are lenders, mortgage brokers, attorneys, real estate agents, home builders and commercial real estate developers. We do not focus our marketing efforts on the homeowner. We operate our business through a single segment, title and escrow, and do not generate significant revenue outside the United States.

      Prior to October 17, 2005, we were a wholly-owned subsidiary of FNF. On that date, FNF distributed shares of our Class A Common Stock representing 17.5% of our outstanding shares to its stockholders as a dividend (the “Distribution”). FNF continues to hold shares of our Class B Common Stock representing 82.5% of all shares and 97.9% of all voting rights of our outstanding common stock.

      Our historical financial statements include assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses directly attributable to our operations as well as transactions between us and FNF and other affiliated entities and allocations of certain of our corporate expenses to FNF and FIS, allocated on a basis that management considers to reflect most fairly or reasonably the utilization of the services provided to or the benefit obtained by those businesses. These expense allocations to FNF and FIS reflect an allocation to us of a portion of the compensation of certain senior officers and other personnel of FNF who are not our employees after the Distribution but who have historically provided services to us. Our historical financial statements do not reflect the debt or interest expense we might have incurred if we had been a stand-alone entity. In addition, we incur other expenses, not reflected in our historical financial statements, as a result of being a separate publicly traded company. As a result, our historical financial statements do not necessarily reflect what our financial position or results of operations would have been if we had been operated as a stand-alone public entity during the periods covered, and may not be indicative of our future results of operations or financial position.

Related Party Transactions

      Our historical financial statements reflect transactions with other businesses and operations of FNF including those being conducted by another FNF subsidiary, FIS.

      A detail of related party items included in revenues and expenses is as follows:

      An FIS subsidiary acts as the title agent in the issuance of title insurance policies by a title insurance underwriter owned by us and in connection with certain trustee sales guarantees, a form of title insurance issued as part of the foreclosure process. As a result, our title insurance subsidiaries pay commissions on title insurance policies sold through FIS. For 2005, 2004, and 2003, these FIS operations generated $91.9 million, $106.3 million, and $284.9 million, respectively, of revenues for us, which we record as agency title premium. The amounts generated have declined significantly since 2003, in part due to a decline in the volume of refinancing transactions in the mortgage industry as a whole. We paid FIS commissions at the rate of 88% of premiums generated, equal to $80.9 million, $93.6 million, and $250.7 million for 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      Through June 30, 2005, we have leased equipment to a subsidiary of FIS. Revenue relating to these leases was $5.0 million, $8.4 million, and $7.3 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      Beginning in September 2003, our expenses included amounts paid to a subsidiary of FIS for the provision by FIS to us of IT infrastructure support, data center management and related IT support services. For 2005, 2004, and 2003, expenses incurred related to such FIS services totaled $56.9 million, $56.6 million, and $12.4 million, respectively. Prior to September 2003, we performed these services ourselves and provided them to FIS. During 2003, we received payments from FIS of $5.4 million relating to these services that offset our other operating expenses. Subsequent to FNF’s acquisition of Alltel Information Services, Inc. in 2003, we performed these services ourselves. In addition, we incurred software expenses relating to an agreement with a subsidiary of FIS that approximated $7.7 million, $5.8 million, and $2.6 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      Included as a reduction of our expenses for all periods are payments from FNF and FIS relating to the provision by us of corporate services to FNF and to FIS and its subsidiaries. These corporate services include accounting, internal audit, treasury, payroll, human resources, tax, legal, purchasing, risk management, mergers and acquisitions, and general management. For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003, our expenses were reduced by $7.0 million, $9.4 million, and $9.2 million, respectively, related to the provision of these corporate services by us to FNF and its subsidiaries other than FIS and its subsidiaries. For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003, our expenses were reduced by $23.3 million, $75.1 million, and $39.5 million, respectively, related to the provision of corporate services by us to FIS and its subsidiaries.

      The title plant assets of several of our title insurance subsidiaries are managed or maintained by a subsidiary of FIS. The underlying title plant information and software continues to be owned by each of our title insurance underwriters, but FIS manages and updates the information in return for either (i) a cash management fee or (ii) the right to sell that information to title insurers, including title insurance underwriters that we own and other third party customers. In most cases, FIS is responsible for keeping the title plant assets current and fully functioning, for which we pay a fee to FIS based on our use of, or access to, the title plant. For 2005, 2004, and 2003, our expenses to FIS under these arrangements were $29.9 million, $28.9 million, and $28.2 million, respectively. In addition, since November 2004, each applicable title insurance underwriter in turn receives a royalty on sales of access to its title plant assets. For the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, the revenues from these title plant royalties were $3.0 million and $0.3 million, respectively. We have entered into agreements with FIS that permit FIS and certain of its subsidiaries to access and use (but not to re-sell) the starters databases and back plant databases of our title insurance subsidiaries. Starters databases are our databases of previously issued title policies and back plant databases contain historical records relating to title that are not regularly updated. Each of our applicable title insurance subsidiaries receives a fee for any access to or use of its starters and back plant databases by FIS. We also do business with additional entities within FIS that provide real estate information to our operations, for which we recorded expenses of $10.9 million, $9.9 million, and $11.4 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      We also have certain license and cost sharing agreements with FIS. We recorded expense of $11.9 million, $12.8 million and $17.9 million relating to these agreements in 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

      Also, we capitalized software costs of $11.2 million paid to FIS relating to a development agreement.

      Our financial statements reflect allocations for a lease of office space to us for our corporate headquarters and business operations in the amounts of $3.8 million, $2.8 million, and $0.5 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      We believe the amounts earned by us or charged to us under each of the foregoing arrangements are fair and reasonable. Although the commission rate paid on the title insurance premiums written by the FIS title agencies was set without negotiation, we believe the commissions earned are consistent with the average rate that would be available to a third party title agent given the amount and the geographic distribution of the business produced and the low risk of loss profile of the business placed. In connection with the title plant management and maintenance services provided by FIS, we believe that the fees charged to us by FIS are at approximately the same rates that FIS and other similar vendors charge unaffiliated title insurers. The IT infrastructure support and data center management services provided to us by FIS are priced within the range of prices that FIS offers to its unaffiliated third party customers for the same types of services. However, the amounts we earned or were charged under these arrangements were not negotiated at arm’s length, and may not represent the terms that we might have obtained from an unrelated third party.

      Notes receivable from FNF, due from FNF and notes payable to FNF as of December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004 were as follows:

      We have notes receivable from FNF relating to agreements between our title underwriters and FNF. These notes amounted to $19.0 million and $22.8 million at December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. As of December 31, 2005, these notes bear interest at 5.1%. We earned interest revenue of $1.0 million, $1.0 million, and $0.7 million relating to these notes during 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      We are included in FNF’s consolidated tax returns and thus any income tax liability or receivable is due to/from FNF. Due from FNF at December 31, 2005 and 2004, includes a receivable from FNF relating to overpayment of taxes of $11.5 million and $63.6 million, respectively.

      On September 30, 2005, we issued two $250 million intercompany notes payable to FNF (the “Mirror Notes”), with terms that mirrored FNF’s existing $250 million 7.30% public debentures due in August 2011 and $250 million 5.25% public debentures due in March 2013. Following the issuance of the Mirror Notes, we filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4, pursuant to which we offered to accept the outstanding FNF notes in exchange for FNT notes we issued having substantially the same terms. On January 18, 2006, we completed these exchange offers and received $241,347,000 in aggregate principal amount of FNF’s 7.30% Notes due August 15, 2011, and the entire $250,000,000 in aggregate principal of FNF’s 5.25% Notes due March 15, 2013. The FNF notes received by us in the exchange were subsequently delivered to FNF in partial redemption of the 7.30% Mirror Note due August 15, 2011, and in full redemption of the 5.25% Mirror Note due March  15, 2013. In order to reflect the partial redemption of the 7.30% Mirror Note due August 15, 2011, the original note has been replaced with an identical Mirror Note with a principal balance of $8,653,000, which reflects the unredeemed portion of the original Mirror Note. Interest on each mirror note has been accrued from the last date on which interest on the corresponding FNF notes was paid and at the same rate. We may seek to acquire some or all of the 7.30% FNF Notes remaining outstanding, through purchases in the open market, privately negotiated purchases or otherwise. In the event that any such notes are acquired by us, we anticipate that we would deliver them to FNF in further redemption of the remaining 7.30% Mirror Note due August 15, 2011.

      On October 24, 2005, we borrowed $150 million under our revolving credit facility and paid it to FNF in satisfaction of a $150 million intercompany note issued by one of our subsidiaries to FNF in August 2005.

Business Trends and Conditions

      Title insurance revenue is closely related to the level of real estate activity and the average price of real estate sales. Real estate sales are directly affected by the availability of funds to finance purchases, predominantly mortgage interest rates. Other factors affecting real estate activity include, but are not limited to, demand for housing, employment levels, family income levels and general economic conditions. In addition to real estate sales, mortgage refinancing is an important source of title insurance revenue. We have found that residential real estate activity generally decreases in the following situations:

      Because commercial real estate transactions tend to be driven more by supply and demand for commercial space and occupancy rates in a particular area rather than by macroeconomic events, our commercial real estate title insurance business can generate revenues which are not dependent on the industry cycles discussed above.

      Because these factors can change dramatically, revenue levels in the title insurance industry can also change dramatically. For example, beginning in the second half of 1999 and through 2000, steady interest rate increases caused by actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board resulted in a significant decline in refinancing transactions. As a result, the market shifted from a refinance-driven market in 1998 to a more traditional market driven by new home purchases and resales in 1999 and 2000. However, beginning in January 2001 and continuing through June of 2003, the Federal Reserve Board reduced interest rates by 550 basis points, bringing interest rates down to their lowest level in recent history, which again significantly increased the volume of refinance activity. In 2004 and 2005, mortgage rates increased as the Federal Reserve Board increased interest rates by 325 basis points since June 2004, resulting in decreases in refinance activity. Notwithstanding the increase in interest rates, home prices appreciated strongly in many markets in 2004, benefiting our revenues. In 2005, refinance activity has been lower than in 2004, but purchase loan originations have continued to increase and home prices have continued to appreciate. The decreased refinance activity is evidenced by the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (“MBA”) statistics showing that approximately 46.5% of new loan originations in 2005 were refinance transactions as compared with approximately 52.8% in 2004. The ten-year treasury rate has increased from 3.0% in June 2003 to 4.5% at the end of 2005. According to the MBA, U.S. mortgage originations (including refinancings) were approximately $2.4 trillion, $2.8 trillion, and $3.8 trillion in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. The MBA’s Mortgage Finance Forecast estimates a $2.24 trillion mortgage origination market for 2006, which would be a 19.2% decrease from 2005. The MBA further predicts that the 19.2% decrease will result from purchase transactions declining from $1.49 billion in 2005 to $1.43 billion in 2006, or 3.6%, and refinancing transactions dropping from $1.29 billion to $0.81 billion, or 37.1%. We expect that current interest rate levels and any future increase in interest rates will most likely result in lower levels of mortgage originations in 2006 than in 2005 or 2004.

      Historically, real estate transactions have produced seasonal revenue levels for title insurers. The first calendar quarter is typically the weakest quarter in terms of revenue due to the generally low volume of home sales during January and February. The third calendar quarter is typically the strongest in terms of revenue due to a higher volume of home sales in the summer months and the fourth quarter is also strong due to commercial customers desiring to complete transactions by year end. Significant changes in interest rates may alter these traditional seasonal patterns due to the effect the cost of financing has on the volume of real estate transactions.

Critical Accounting Estimates

      The accounting estimates described below are those we consider critical in preparing our Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements. Management is required to make estimates and assumptions that can affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures with respect to contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements and the reported amounts of

revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual amounts could differ from those estimates. See Note A of Notes to the Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements for a more detailed description of the significant accounting policies that have been followed in preparing our financial statements.

      Reserve for Claim Losses. Title companies issue two types of policies since both the buyer and lender in real estate transactions want to know that their interest in the property is insured against certain title defects outlined in the policy. An owner’s policy insures the buyer against such defects for as long as he or she owns the property (as well as against warranty claims arising out of the sale of the property by such owner). A lender’s policy insures the priority of the lender’s security interest over the claims that other parties may have in the property. The maximum amount of liability under a title insurance policy is generally the face amount of the policy plus the cost of defending the insured’s title against an adverse claim. While most non-title forms of insurance, including property and casualty, provide for the assumption of risk of loss arising out of unforeseen future events, title insurance serves to protect the policyholder from risk of loss from events that predated the issuance of the policy.

      Unlike many other forms of insurance, title insurance requires only a one-time premium for continuous coverage until another policy is warranted due to changes in property circumstances arising from refinance, resale, additional liens, or other events. Unless we issue the subsequent policy, we receive no notice that our exposure under our policy has ended and as a result we are unable to track the actual terminations of our exposures.

      Our reserve for claim losses includes reserves for known claims (“PLR”) as well as for losses that have been incurred but not yet reported to us (“IBNR”), net of recoupments. We reserve for each known claim based on our review of the estimated amount of the claim and the costs required to settle the claim. Reserves for IBNR claims are estimates that are established at the time the premium revenue is recognized and are based upon historical experience and other factors, including industry trends, claim loss history, legal environment, geographic considerations, and the types of policies written. We also reserve for losses arising from escrow, closing and disbursement functions due to fraud or operational error.

      The table below summarizes our reserves for known claims and incurred but not reported claims.

      Although most claims against title insurance policies are reported relatively soon after the policy has been issued, claims may be reported many years later. By their nature, claims are often complex, vary greatly in dollar amounts and are affected by economic and market conditions and the legal environment existing at the time of settlement of the claims. Estimating future title loss payments is difficult because of the complex nature of title claims, the long periods of time over which claims are paid, significantly varying dollar amounts of individual claims, and other factors.

      We continually update loss reserve estimates by utilizing both internal and external resources. Management performs a detailed study of loss reserves based upon the latest available information at the end of each quarter and year. In addition, an independent actuarial consulting firm assists us in analyzing our historic loss experience and developing statistical models to project ultimate loss expectancy. The actuaries prepare a formal analysis of our reserves at December 31 each year. Management examines both the quantitative and qualitative data provided by both the independent actuaries and internal sources such as our legal, claims, and underwriting departments to ultimately arrive at our best reserve estimate. Regardless of technique, all methods involve significant judgment and assumptions. Management strives to improve its loss reserve estimation process by enhancing its ability to analyze loss development patterns and we continually look for ways to identify new trends to reduce the uncertainty of our loss exposure. However, adjustments may be

required as experience develops unexpectedly, new information becomes known, new loss patterns emerge, or as other contributing factors are considered and incorporated into the analysis.

      Predicting ultimate loss exposure is predicated on evaluating past experience and adjusting for changes in current development and trends. Our independent actuaries’ work includes two principal steps. First, they use an actuarial technique known as the loss development method to calculate loss development factors for the Company. The loss development factors forecast ultimate losses for each policy year based on historic emergence patterns of the Company. Older policy year experience is applied to newer policy years to project future development. When new trends surface, the loss development factors are adjusted to incorporate the more recent development phenomena. Changes in homeownership patterns, increased property turnover rates, and a boom in refinance transactions all are examples of current events that reduce the tail exposure of the loss pattern and warrant these adjustments.

      In the second step, the loss development factors calculated in the first step are used to determine the portion of ultimate loss already reported. The percentage of ultimate losses not yet reported is then applied to the expected losses, which are estimated as the product of written premium and an expected loss ratio. The expected loss ratios are derived from an econometric model of the title insurance industry incorporating various economic variables including interest rates as well as industry related developments such as title plant automation and defalcations, which are misappropriations of funds from escrow accounts, to arrive at an expected loss ratio for each policy year.

      Using the above approach, our external actuaries develop a single point estimate rather than a range of reserves or a set of point estimates. The point estimate provided by our independent actuaries, combined with our known claim reserves, aggregated $1,147.5 million at December 31, 2005, as compared with our carried reserve of $1,063.9 million, a difference of $83.6 million, or 7.3%. Different professional judgment in three critical assumptions was the primary driver of the difference between the independent actuary’s point estimate and our carried reserve level: different weight given to a separate projection of individually significant losses (losses greater than $500,000); adjustments based on recent experience to realize emerging changes in refinance versus home sale activity; and cost reduction expectations with respect to of unallocated loss adjustment expense (“ULAE”) reserves. In the independent actuary’s estimate approximately one half of the effect of projecting significant losses separately was taken into consideration; whereas, our management applied full weight to such analysis. Additionally, the independent actuary’s estimate placed less weight on the effects of refinancings in the 2001-2002 policy years, some of the largest refinance years in history; whereas our management placed moderately greater weights on the effects of refinancing assumptions in such years. Finally, adjustments to the ULAE reserves were supported by management’s analysis of the true costs expected to be incurred in a claims run-off scenario.

      In our reserve setting process, our independent actuaries fulfill a function, which is to provide information that is utilized as part of the overall mix of information that our management uses to set our reserves, but this is only one component of management’s evaluation process. While there can be no assurance as to the precision of loss reserve estimates, as shown in the table below, our development on prior years’ loss reserves over the past three years has generally been within a narrow range using the reserve setting processes described above.

      Our analysis of our reserves as of December 31, 2005 demonstrates management’s continued efforts to improve its loss reserve estimate. In 2004, we incorporated into our methodology a separate analysis of mega claims (defined as claims with incurred amounts greater than $500,000). Prior to the separate analysis of mega claims, such claims influenced the loss development factors used in the actuarial methods by creating a multiplicative effect for newer policy years’ loss projections. The adjudication of mega claims is handled by specific attorneys and may have different emergence patterns than non-mega title claims.

      In addition, adjustments were made to reflect the reduced ultimate exposure of recent policy years due to unprecedented refinancing activity and property turnover rates. Our hypothesis, which is supported by recent data, is that a lower percentage of policies from prior years remain in force due to the substantial turnover in property mortgages. Furthermore, it is our belief that refinance transactions develop differently than resale

transactions in that there appears to be an acceleration of claim activity as claims are reported more quickly. As a result, we have incorporated the effect of these assumptions into our loss projections.

      The table below presents our loss development experience for the past three years. As can be seen in the table, the variability in loss estimates over the past three years has ranged from favorable development in an amount equal to 0.3% of title premiums to adverse development of 0.7% of title premiums with the average being unfavorable development of 0.4% over the three year period. Assuming that variability of potential reserve estimates is + or - 0.4%, the effect on pretax earnings would be as presented in the last line of the table.

      Valuation of Investments. We regularly review our investment portfolio for factors that may indicate that a decline in fair value of an investment is other-than-temporary. Some factors considered in evaluating whether or not a decline in fair value is other-than-temporary include: (i) our ability and intent to retain the investment for a period of time sufficient to allow for a recovery in value; (ii) the duration and extent to which the fair value has been less than cost; and (iii) the financial condition and prospects of the issuer. Such reviews are inherently uncertain and the value of the investment may not fully recover or may decline in future periods resulting in a realized loss. Investments are selected for analysis whenever an unrealized loss is greater than a certain threshold that we determine based on the size of our portfolio. Fixed maturity investments that have unrealized losses caused by interest rate movements are not at risk as we have the ability and intent to hold them to maturity. Unrealized losses on investments in equity securities and fixed maturity instruments that are susceptible to credit related declines are evaluated based on the aforementioned factors. Currently available market data is considered and estimates are made as to the duration and prospects for recovery, and the ability to retain the investment until such recovery takes place. These estimates are revisited quarterly and any material degradation in the prospect for recovery will be considered in the other than temporary impairment analysis. We believe that continuous monitoring and analysis has allowed for the proper recognition of other than temporary impairments over the past three year period. Any change in estimate in

this area will have an impact on the results of operations of the period in which a charge is taken. During 2005 and 2004, we recorded other than temporary impairments totaling $6.9 million and $6.6 million, respectively. During 2003, we recorded no other than temporary impairments.

      Goodwill. We have made acquisitions in the past that have resulted in a significant amount of goodwill. As of December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, goodwill was $1,051.6 million and $959.6 million, respectively. The majority of our goodwill as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 relates to our Chicago Title acquisition. The process of determining whether or not an asset, such as goodwill, is impaired or recoverable relies on projections of future cash flows, operating results and market conditions. While we believe that our estimates of future cash flows are reasonable, these estimates are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ from what is assumed in our impairment tests. In evaluating the recoverability of goodwill, we perform an annual goodwill impairment test based on an analysis of the discounted future cash flows generated by the underlying assets. We have completed our annual goodwill impairment tests in each of the past three years and have determined that we have a fair value in excess of our carrying value. Such analyses are particularly sensitive to changes in estimates of future cash flows and discount rates. Changes to these estimates might result in material changes in fair value and determination of the recoverability of goodwill, which may result in charges against earnings and a reduction in the carrying value of our goodwill.

      Long-Lived Assets. We review long-lived assets, primarily computer software, property and equipment and other intangibles, for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. If indicators of impairment are present, we estimate the future net cash flows expected to be generated from the use of those assets and their eventual disposal. We would recognize an impairment loss if the aggregate future net cash flows were less than the carrying amount. We have not recorded any material impairment charges in the past three years. As a result, the carrying values of these assets could be significantly affected by the accuracy of our estimates of future net cash flows, which, similar to our goodwill analysis, cannot be estimated with certainty.

      Revenue Recognition. Our direct title insurance premiums and escrow and other title-related fees are recognized as revenue at the time of closing of the related transaction as the earnings process is then considered complete, whereas premium revenues from agency operations and agency commissions include an accrual based on estimates using historical information of the volume of transactions that have closed in a particular period for which premiums have not yet been reported to us. The accrual for agency premiums is necessary because of the lag between the closing of these transactions and the reporting of these policies to us by the agent. During the second quarter of 2005, we re-evaluated our method of estimation for accruing agency title revenues and commissions and refined the method, which resulted in our recording approximately $50.0 million in additional agency revenue in the second quarter of 2005 than we would have under our prior method. The impact on net earnings of this adjustment was approximately $2.0 million. We are likely to continue to have changes to our accrual for agency revenue in the future, but as demonstrated by this second quarter adjustment, the impact on net earnings of changes in these accruals is very small.

Results of Operations

      The following table presents certain financial data for the years indicated:

      Total revenue in 2005 increased $432.4 million to $6,321.8 million, an increase of 7.3% compared to 2004 with increases in direct and agency title premiums and escrow and other title-related fees. Total revenue in 2004 decreased $81.3 million, or 1.4%, to $5,889.4 million from $5,970.7 million in 2003. Although the mix of direct and agency title premiums changed from 2003 to 2004, total title premiums and escrow and other title-related fees remained fairly consistent in 2004 as compared with 2003.

      Title insurance premiums were $4,949.0 million in 2005, $4,718.2 million in 2004, and $4,700.8 million in 2003. The following table presents the percentages of title insurance premiums generated by our direct and agency operations:

      Direct title premiums increased from 2004 to 2005 and decreased from 2003 to 2004. From 2004 to 2005, an increase in average fee per file was partially offset by a decrease in closed order levels. From 2003 to 2004, a decrease in closed order levels was partially offset by an increase in average fee per file. The average fee per file in our direct operations was $1,487, $1,324, and $1,081 in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. The increases in the average fee per file in 2005 and 2004 were consistent with the decline in the overall level of refinance activity experienced during those years. The fee per file tends to increase as mortgage interest rates rise, and the mix of business changes from a predominantly refinance-driven market to more of a resale-driven market because resale transactions generally involve the issuance of both a lender’s policy and an owner’s policy whereas refinance transactions typically only require a lender’s policy. The increases in average fee per file also reflect substantial appreciation in home prices during both periods and the strong levels of commercial activity in 2005 as compared to 2004. The decrease in closed order levels in each period reflects a weaker refinance market, partially offset by a strong, stable purchase market.

      Agency premiums increased $49.2 million in 2005 and $119.3 million in 2004. During the second quarter of 2005, we re-evaluated our method of estimation for accruing agency title revenues and commissions and refined the method which resulted in our recording approximately $50.0 million in additional agency revenue in the second quarter of 2005 than we would have under our prior method. The impact on net earnings of this adjustment was approximately $2.0 million. A change in agency premiums has a much smaller effect on profitability than the same change in direct premiums would have because our margins as a percentage of gross premiums for agency business are significantly lower than the margins realized from our direct operations due to commissions paid to our agents and other costs related to the agency business. The increase in agency title premiums in 2004 was primarily attributed to an increase in agency premiums of $193.5 million due to our acquisition of APTIC in March 2004 that was offset by a decrease in the amount of agency revenue provided by FIS’s title agency operations. Margins on agency revenues are generally lower than margins on direct title insurance revenues. Agency revenues from FIS title agency businesses were $91.9 million, $106.3 million, and $284.9 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      Trends in escrow and other title-related fees are primarily related to title insurance activity generated by our direct operations. Escrow and other title-related fees during the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, fluctuated in a pattern generally consistent with the fluctuation in direct title insurance premiums and order counts. Escrow and other title-related fees were $1,162.3 million, $1,039.8 million, and $1,058.7 million during 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      Interest and investment income levels are primarily a function of securities markets, interest rates and the amount of cash available for investment. Interest and investment income in 2005 was $118.1 million, compared with $64.9 million in 2004 and $56.7 million in 2003. The increase in interest and investment income in 2005 is primarily due to an increase in the short-term investment and fixed income asset base and an increase in interest rates. Average invested assets were $3,732.6 million, $3,226.2 million and $2,811.5 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. The tax equivalent yield in 2005, excluding realized gains and losses, was 3.8%, as compared with 2.7% in 2004 and 2.5% in 2003.

      Net realized gains and losses for 2005, 2004, and 2003 were $44.7 million, $22.9 million, and $101.8 million, respectively. Net realized gains in 2003 included a $51.7 million realized gain resulting from IAC InterActive Corp.’s acquisition of Lending Tree Inc. and the subsequent sale of our IAC Interactive Corp. common stock and a realized gain of $21.8 million on the sale of New Century Financial Corporation common stock.

      Other income represents revenue generated by other smaller real-estate related businesses that are not directly title-related. Other income was $41.8 million, $43.5 million, and $52.7 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      Our operating expenses consist primarily of personnel costs and other operating expenses, which are incurred as orders are received and processed and agent commissions which are incurred as revenue is recognized. Title insurance premiums, escrow and other title-related fees are generally recognized as income at the time the underlying transaction closes. As a result, direct operations revenue lags approximately 45-60 days behind expenses and therefore gross margins may fluctuate. The changes in the market

environment, mix of business between direct and agency operations and the contributions from our various business units have impacted margins and net earnings. We have implemented programs and have taken necessary actions to maintain expense levels consistent with revenue streams. However, a short time lag exists in reducing variable costs and certain fixed costs are incurred regardless of revenue levels. We have taken significant measures to maintain appropriate personnel levels and costs relative to the volume and mix of business while maintaining customer service standards and quality controls. Beginning during the second half of 2003, as open orders on refinance transactions declined with the increase in mortgage interest rates, we began reducing personnel costs with the reduction of approximately 22% of the title and escrow workforce from July to December of 2003. Considering the normal lag time between workforce reductions and the related reductions in personnel expense, we maintained personnel at appropriate levels during 2005 and 2004, including a reduction of approximately 8% of the title and escrow workforce in the fourth quarter of 2005, and will continue to monitor prevailing market conditions and adjust personnel costs in accordance with activity.

      Personnel costs include base salaries, commissions, benefits and bonuses paid to employees, and are one of our most significant operating expenses. Personnel costs totaled $1,897.9 million, $1,680.8 million, and $1,692.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. Personnel costs, as a percentage of direct title insurance premiums and escrow and other title-related fees, were 56.6% in 2005, compared with 55.2% in 2004 and 53.5% in 2003. The increase in personnel costs as a percentage of related revenue in 2005 is primarily due to a recent trend in salary increases relating to increased competition for top employees and the strong real estate environment. The increase in personnel costs as a percentage of related revenue in 2004 as compared to 2003 is attributable to the lag in reducing personnel to the appropriate level based on activity.

      Other operating expenses consist primarily of facilities expenses, title plant maintenance, premium taxes (which insurance underwriters are required to pay on title premiums in lieu of franchise and other state taxes), postage and courier services, computer services, professional services, advertising expenses, general insurance, and trade and notes receivable allowances. Other operating expenses totaled $935.3 million, $849.6 million, and $817.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. Other operating expenses as a percentage of direct title insurance premiums and escrow and other title-related fees were 27.9% in both 2005 and 2004, and 25.8% in 2003. The increase in other operating expenses as a percentage of total direct title premiums and escrow and other fees in 2004 is consistent with the increase in personnel costs as a percentage of total direct title premiums and escrow and other fees.

      Agent commissions represent the portion of premiums retained by agents pursuant to the terms of their respective agency contracts. Agent commissions and the resulting percentage of agent premiums we retain vary according to regional differences in real estate closing practices and state regulations.

      The following table illustrates the relationship of agent title premiums and agent commissions:

      The provision for claim losses includes an estimate of anticipated title and title-related claims and escrow losses. The estimate of anticipated title and title-related claims is accrued as a percentage of title premium revenue based on our historical loss experience and other relevant factors. We monitor our claims loss experience on a continual basis and adjust the provision for claim losses accordingly.

      A summary of the reserve for claim losses is as follows:

      Management continually updates loss reserve estimates as new information becomes known, new loss patterns emerge, or as other contributing factors are considered and incorporated into the analysis of reserve for claim losses. The unfavorable title loss provision amounts in 2005 reflect a higher estimated loss for the 2005 policy year as well as higher than expected incurred losses and payment levels on previously issued policies. The title loss provision in 2004 reflects a higher estimated loss for the 2004 policy year offset in part by a favorable adjustment from previous policy years. The unfavorable development during 2003 reflects higher than expected payment levels on previously issued policies.

      Interest expense for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003 was $16.7 million, $3.9 million, and $4.6 million, respectively. The increase in 2005 relates primarily to an increase in average borrowings as compared to the prior year including the $500 million in notes due to FNF and borrowings on the Credit Facility in 2005.

      Income tax expense as a percentage of earnings before income taxes for 2005, 2004, and 2003 was 37.7%, 36.6%, and 37.3%, respectively. The fluctuation in income tax expense as a percentage of earnings before income taxes is attributable to our estimate of ultimate income tax liability, and changes in the characteristics of net earnings year to year, such as underwriting income versus investment income.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

      Our cash requirements include operating expenses, taxes, payments of interest and principal on our debt, capital expenditures, business acquisitions and dividends on our common stock. We intend to pay an annual dividend of $1.16 on each share of our common stock, payable quarterly, or an aggregate of approximately $202.2 million per year, based on the number of shares we had outstanding as of the Distribution. We believe that all anticipated cash requirements for current operations will be met from internally generated funds, through cash dividends from subsidiaries, cash generated by investment securities and borrowings on existing credit facilities. Our short-term and long-term liquidity requirements are monitored regularly to ensure that we can meet our cash requirements. We forecast the needs of all of our subsidiaries and periodically review

their short-term and long-term projected sources and uses of funds, as well as the asset, liability, investment and cash flow assumptions underlying these projections.

      Our insurance subsidiaries generate cash from premiums earned and their respective investment portfolios and these funds are adequate to satisfy the payments of claims and other liabilities. Due to the magnitude of our investment portfolio in relation to our claim loss reserves, we do not specifically match durations of our investments to the cash outflows required to pay claims, but do manage outflows on a shorter time frame.

      Our two significant sources of internally generated funds are dividends and other payments from our subsidiaries. As a holding company, we receive cash from our subsidiaries in the form of dividends and as reimbursement for operating and other administrative expenses we incur. The reimbursements are paid within the guidelines of management agreements among us and our subsidiaries. Our insurance subsidiaries are restricted by state regulation in their ability to pay dividends and make distributions. Each state of domicile regulates the extent to which our title underwriters can pay dividends or make other distributions to us. See “Item 1 — Business — Regulation.” As of December 31, 2005, $1.9 billion of our net assets were restricted from dividend payments without prior approval from the relevant departments of insurance. During 2006, our first-tier title subsidiaries can pay or make distributions to us of approximately $289.9 million without prior regulatory approval. Our underwritten title companies collect revenue and pay operating expenses. However, they are not regulated to the same extent as our insurance subsidiaries.

      In July 2005, we paid a cash dividend to FNF in the amount of $145 million. This dividend required prior regulatory approval, which was obtained. In August 2005, one of our subsidiaries that is not subject to regulatory limitations on dividend payments paid a dividend to FNF in the form of a promissory note having a principal amount of $150 million which was paid off in October 2005, using proceeds from the Company’s new credit agreement. On December 14, 2005, we paid a cash dividend of $0.25 per share for an aggregate amount of $43.6 million, made up of $35.8 million that we paid to FNF on shares of Class B common stock and $7.8 million that we paid to public shareholders on shares of Class A common stock. On February 8, 2006, our Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.29 per share, payable March 28, 2006, to stockholders of record as of March 15, 2006, a 16% increase over the previous dividend.

      Our cash flows from operations were $697.5 million, $645.8 million, and $852.6 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively.

      Our capital expenditures related to fixed assets were $85.4 million, $70.6 million, and $80.4 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. Capital expenditures related to title plants were $6.8 million, $6.5 million, and $1.1 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. Capital expenditures related to capitalized software were $8.1 million, $0.4 million, and $16.1 million in 2005, 2004, and 2003, respectively. We do not expect future capital expenditures to increase significantly.

      In connection with the Distribution, we issued two $250 million intercompany notes payable to FNF (the “Mirror Notes”), with terms that mirrored FNF’s existing $250 million 7.30% public notes due in August 2011 and $250 million 5.25% public notes due in March 2013. Proceeds from the issuance of the FNF notes due 2011 were used by FNF to repay debt incurred in connection with the acquisition of our subsidiary, Chicago Title, and the proceeds from the FNF notes due 2013 were used for general corporate purposes. Following the issuance of the Mirror Notes, we filed a Registration Statement on Form S-4, pursuant to which we offered to accept the outstanding FNF notes in exchange for FNT notes we issued having substantially the same terms. On January 18, 2006, we completed these exchange offers and received $241.3 million in aggregate principal amount of FNF’s 7.30% Notes due August 15, 2011, and the entire $250.0 million in aggregate principal of FNF’s 5.25% Notes due March 15, 2013. The FNF notes received by us in the exchange were subsequently delivered to FNF in partial redemption of the 7.30% Mirror Note due August 15, 2011, and in full redemption of the 5.25% Mirror Note due March 15, 2013. In order to reflect the partial redemption of

the 7.30% Mirror Note due August 15, 2011, the original note has been replaced with an identical Mirror Note with a principal balance of $8.7 million, which reflects the unredeemed portion of the original Mirror Note. Interest on each mirror note has been accrued from the last date on which interest on the corresponding FNF notes was paid and at the same rate. The remaining mirror notes mature on the maturity dates of the corresponding FNF notes. Upon any acceleration of maturity of the FNF notes, whether upon redemption or an event of default of the FNF notes, we must repay the corresponding amount of the mirror note. We may seek to acquire some or all of the 7.30% FNF Notes remaining outstanding, through purchases in the open market, privately negotiated purchases or otherwise. In the event that any such notes are acquired by us, we anticipate that we would deliver them to FNF in further redemption of the remaining 7.30% Mirror Note due August 15, 2011.

      On October 17, 2005, the Company entered into a credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”), dated as of October 17, 2005, with Bank of America, N.A. as Administrative Agent and Swing Line Lender, and the other financial institutions party thereto. The Credit Agreement provides for a $400 million unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Credit Facility”) maturing on the fifth anniversary of the closing date. Amounts under the revolving Credit Facility may be borrowed, repaid and reborrowed by the borrowers thereunder from time to time until the maturity of the Credit Facility. Voluntary prepayment of the Credit Facility under the Credit Agreement is permitted at any time without fee upon proper notice and subject to a minimum dollar requirement. Revolving loans under the Credit Facility bear interest at a variable rate based on either (i) the higher of (a) a rate per annum equal to one-half of one percent in excess of the Federal Reserve’s Federal Funds rate, or (b) Bank of America’s “prime rate;” or (ii) a rate per annum equal to the British Bankers Association London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) rate plus a margin of between 0.35%-1.25%, depending on the Company’s then current public debt credit rating from the rating agencies.

      The Credit Agreement contains affirmative, negative and financial covenants customary for financings of this type, including, among other things, limits on the creation of liens and on the sale of assets, limits on the incurrence of indebtedness, restrictions on investments, and limitations on restricted payments and transactions with affiliates and certain amendments. The Credit Agreement requires the Company to maintain investment grade debt ratings, certain financial ratios related to liquidity and statutory surplus and certain levels of capitalization. The Credit Agreement also includes customary events of default for facilities of this type (with customary grace periods, as applicable) and provides that, upon the occurrence of an event of default, the interest rate on all outstanding obligations will be increased and payments of all outstanding loans may be accelerated and/or the lenders’ commitments may be terminated. In addition, upon the occurrence of certain insolvency or bankruptcy related events of default, all amounts payable under the Credit Agreement shall automatically become immediately due and payable, and the lenders’ commitments will automatically terminate. We believe that we are in compliance with all covenants related to the Credit Agreement at December 31, 2005.

      On October 24, 2005, we borrowed $150 million under the Credit Facility and paid it to FNF in satisfaction of a $150 million intercompany note issued by one of our subsidiaries to FNF in August 2005. During the fourth quarter of 2005, we repaid $50 million. At December 31, 2005, the outstanding balance was $100 million.

      We have agreed that, without FNF’s consent, we will not issue any shares of our capital stock or any rights, warrants or options to acquire our capital stock, if after giving effect to the issuances and considering all of the shares of our capital stock which may be acquired under the rights, warrants and options outstanding on the date of the issuance, FNF would not be eligible to consolidate our results of operations for tax purposes, would not receive favorable tax treatment of dividends paid by us or would not be able, if it so desired, to distribute the rest of our stock it holds to its stockholders in a tax-free distribution. These limits will generally enable FNF to continue to own at least 80% of our outstanding common stock. See “Item 13 — Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.”

      Our long-term contractual obligations generally include our loss reserves, our long-term debt and operating lease payments on certain of our property and equipment. As of December 31, 2005, our required payments relating to our long-term contractual obligations are as follows: