Contingent Liabilities	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingent Liabilities	Contingent Liabilities Litigation and arbitration The Company is regularly involved in litigation and arbitration, both as a defendant and as a plaintiff. The litigation and arbitration naming the Company as a defendant ordinarily involves our activities as an insurer, employer, investor, investment advisor or taxpayer. It is not feasible to predict or determine the ultimate outcome of all legal or arbitration proceedings or to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses. Management of the Company believes that the outcome of our litigation and arbitration matters are not likely, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company. However, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation and arbitration, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. SEC Cease-and-Desist Order Phoenix and the Company are subject to a Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, which was approved by the SEC in March 2014 (the “March 2014 Order”) and was subsequently amended by an amended SEC administrative order approved by the SEC in August 2014 (the March 2014 Order, as amended, the “Amended Order”). The Amended Order and the March 2014 Order (collectively, the “Orders”), directed Phoenix and the Company to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder and Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act and Rules 15d-1 and 15d-13 thereunder. Phoenix and the Company remain subject to these obligations. Pursuant to the Orders, Phoenix and the Company were required to file certain periodic SEC reports in accordance with the timetables set forth in the Orders. All of such filings have been made. Phoenix and the Company paid civil monetary penalties to the SEC in the aggregate amount of $1.1 million pursuant to the terms of the Orders. Cases Brought by Policy Investors On June 5, 2012, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as successor in interest to Christiana Bank & Trust Company and as trustee of 60 unnamed trusts, filed suit against Phoenix, Phoenix Life and the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California; the case was later transferred to the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 13-499-RGA) by order dated March 28, 2013. After the plaintiffs twice amended their complaint, and dropped Phoenix as a defendant and dropped one of the plaintiff Trusts, the court issued an order on April 9, 2014 dismissing seven of the ten counts, and partially dismissing two more, with prejudice. The court dismissed claims alleging that Phoenix Life and the Company committed RICO violations and fraud by continuing to collect premiums while concealing an intent to later deny death claims. The claims that remain in the case seek a declaration that the policies at issue are valid, and damages relating to cost of insurance increases. This case has been settled, and the settlement does not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. On August 2, 2012, Lima LS PLC filed a complaint against Phoenix, Phoenix Life, the Company, James D. Wehr, Philip K. Polkinghorn, Edward W. Cassidy, Dona D. Young and other unnamed defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Case No. CV12-01122). On July 1, 2013, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted in part and denied in part. Thereafter, on July 31, 2013, the plaintiff served an amended complaint against the same defendants, with the exception that Mr. Cassidy was dropped as a defendant. The plaintiffs allege that Phoenix Life promoted certain policy sales knowing that the policies would ultimately be owned by investors and then challenging the validity of these policies or denying claims submitted on these policies. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, including punitive and treble damages, attorneys’ fees and a declaratory judgment. We believe we have meritorious defenses against this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims. The outcome of this litigation and any potential losses are uncertain. Cost of Insurance Cases On November 18, 2011, Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the “Fleisher Litigation”), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed suit against Phoenix Life in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A. No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) challenging COI rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life in 2010 and 2011, which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language permitting such adjustments. By order dated July 12, 2013, two separate classes were certified in the Fleisher Litigation; by subsequent order dated August 26, 2013, the court decertified one of the classes. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The class certified in the court’s July 12, 2013 order, as limited by the court’s August 26, 2013 order, is limited to holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York subject to New York law and subject to Phoenix Life’s 2011 COI rate adjustment. By order dated April 29, 2014, the court denied Martin Fleisher’s motion for summary judgment in the Fleisher Litigation in its entirety, while granting in part and denying in part Phoenix Life’s motion for summary judgment. The Company, a subsidiary of Phoenix Life, has been named as a defendant in six actions challenging its COI rate adjustments implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. Five cases have been brought against the Company, while one case has been brought against the Company and Phoenix Life. These six cases, only one of which is styled as a class action, have been brought by (1) Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No. 1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March 14, 2012; the “Tiger Capital Litigation”); (2-5) U.S. Bank National Association, as securities intermediary for Lima Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No. 1:12-cv-06811-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on November 16, 2011; 3: C.A. No. 1:13-cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March 8, 2013; collectively, the “U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations”); (4: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint originally filed on March 6, 2013, in the District of Delaware and transferred by order dated April 22, 2014, to the District of Connecticut; and 5: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-01398-WWE, U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint filed on September 23, 2014, and amended on October 16, 2014, to add Phoenix Life as a defendant (collectively the “U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations”)); and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-cv-8714; U.S. Dist. Ct.; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on October 31, 2014; the “SPRR Litigation”). SPRR LLC filed suit against the Company, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, challenging COI rate adjustments implemented by the Company in 2011. The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations were assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation, and discovery in these four actions has concluded. By orders in both U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations dated May 23, 2014, the court denied U.S. Bank’s motions for summary judgment in their entirety, while granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motions for summary judgment. U.S. Bank moved for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment decisions in the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, which the court denied by orders dated June 4, 2014. By order in the Tiger Capital Litigation dated July 23, 2014, the court denied Tiger Capital’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, while granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff in the Tiger Capital Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff in the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations seeks damages and attorneys’ fees for breach of contract and other common law and statutory claims. The plaintiff in the SPRR Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract for a nationwide class of policyholders. The Fleisher Litigation, the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the Tiger Capital Litigation are scheduled for consecutive trials commencing on June 15, 2015. Complaints to state insurance departments regarding the Company’s COI rate adjustments have also prompted regulatory inquiries or investigations in several states, with two of such states (California and Wisconsin) issuing letters directing the Company to take remedial action in response to complaints by a single policyholder. The Company disagrees with both states’ positions. On March 23, 2015, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in Wisconsin ordered PHL Variable to pay restitution to current and former owners of seven policies and imposed a fine on PHL Variable which, in a total amount, does not have a material impact on PHL Variable’s financial position (Office of the Commissioner of Insurance Case No. 13- C35362). PHL Variable disagrees with the ALJ’s determination and intends to appeal the order. Phoenix Life and the Company believe that they have meritorious defenses against all of these lawsuits and regulatory directives and intend to vigorously defend against them, including by appeal if necessary. The outcome of these matters is uncertain and any potential losses cannot be reasonably estimated. Regulatory matters State regulatory bodies, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the IRS and other regulatory bodies regularly make inquiries of us and, from time to time, conduct examinations or investigations concerning our compliance with laws and regulations related to, among other things, our insurance and broker-dealer subsidiaries, securities offerings and registered products. We endeavor to respond to such inquiries in an appropriate way and to take corrective action if warranted. Further, Phoenix is providing to the SEC certain information and documentation regarding the restatement of its prior period financial statements and the staff of the SEC has indicated to Phoenix that the matter remains subject to further investigation and potential further regulatory action. We cannot predict the outcome of any of such investigations or actions related to these or other matters. Regulatory actions may be difficult to assess or quantify. The nature and magnitude of their outcomes may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. It is not feasible to predict or determine the ultimate outcome of all pending inquiries, investigations, legal proceedings and other regulatory actions, or to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses. Based on current information, we believe that the outcomes of our regulatory matters are not likely, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, given the inherent unpredictability of regulatory matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on our financial statements in particular quarterly or annual periods. State Insurance Department Examinations During 2012 and 2013, the Connecticut Insurance Department conducted its routine financial and market conduct examination of the Company and two other Connecticut-domiciled insurance affiliates. The Connecticut Insurance Department released its financial examination report for the Company on May 28, 2014 and its market conduct examination report on December 29, 2014. Unclaimed Property Inquiries In late 2012, Phoenix and the Company and their affiliates received separate notices from Unclaimed Property Clearing House (“UPCH”) and Kelmar Associates, LLC (“Kelmar”) that UPCH and Kelmar had been authorized by the unclaimed property administrators in certain states to conduct unclaimed property audits. The audits began in 2013 and are being conducted on the Phoenix enterprise with a focus on death benefit payments; however, all amounts owed by any aspect of the Phoenix enterprise are also a focus. This includes any payments to vendors, brokers, former employees and shareholders. UPCH represents 31 states and the District of Columbia and Kelmar represents seven states.

Contingent Liabilities

Litigation and arbitration

The Company is regularly involved in litigation and arbitration, both as a defendant and as a plaintiff. The litigation and arbitration naming the Company as a defendant ordinarily involves our activities as an insurer, employer, investor, investment advisor or taxpayer.

It is not feasible to predict or determine the ultimate outcome of all legal or arbitration proceedings or to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses. Management of the Company believes that the outcome of our litigation and arbitration matters are not likely, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the Company. However, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of litigation and arbitration, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

SEC Cease-and-Desist Order

Phoenix and the Company are subject to a Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order, which was approved by the SEC in March 2014 (the “March 2014 Order”) and was subsequently amended by an amended SEC administrative order approved by the SEC in August 2014 (the March 2014 Order, as amended, the “Amended Order”). The Amended Order and the March 2014 Order (collectively, the “Orders”), directed Phoenix and the Company to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder and Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act and Rules 15d-1 and 15d-13 thereunder. Phoenix and the Company remain subject to these obligations. Pursuant to the Orders, Phoenix and the Company were required to file certain periodic SEC reports in accordance with the timetables set forth in the Orders. All of such filings have been made. Phoenix and the Company paid civil monetary penalties to the SEC in the aggregate amount of $1.1 million pursuant to the terms of the Orders.

Cases Brought by Policy Investors

On June 5, 2012, Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as successor in interest to Christiana Bank & Trust Company and as trustee of 60 unnamed trusts, filed suit against Phoenix, Phoenix Life and the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California; the case was later transferred to the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 13-499-RGA) by order dated March 28, 2013. After the plaintiffs twice amended their complaint, and dropped Phoenix as a defendant and dropped one of the plaintiff Trusts, the court issued an order on April 9, 2014 dismissing seven of the ten counts, and partially dismissing two more, with prejudice. The court dismissed claims alleging that Phoenix Life and the Company committed RICO violations and fraud by continuing to collect premiums while concealing an intent to later deny death claims. The claims that remain in the case seek a declaration that the policies at issue are valid, and damages relating to cost of insurance increases. This case has been settled, and the settlement does not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

On August 2, 2012, Lima LS PLC filed a complaint against Phoenix, Phoenix Life, the Company, James D. Wehr, Philip K. Polkinghorn, Edward W. Cassidy, Dona D. Young and other unnamed defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Case No. CV12-01122). On July 1, 2013, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint was granted in part and denied in part. Thereafter, on July 31, 2013, the plaintiff served an amended complaint against the same defendants, with the exception that Mr. Cassidy was dropped as a defendant. The plaintiffs allege that Phoenix Life promoted certain policy sales knowing that the policies would ultimately be owned by investors and then challenging the validity of these policies or denying claims submitted on these policies. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, including punitive and treble damages, attorneys’ fees and a declaratory judgment. We believe we have meritorious defenses against this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims. The outcome of this litigation and any potential losses are uncertain.

Cost of Insurance Cases

On November 18, 2011, Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the “Fleisher Litigation”), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed suit against Phoenix Life in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A. No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) challenging COI rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life in 2010 and 2011, which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language permitting such adjustments. By order dated July 12, 2013, two separate classes were certified in the Fleisher Litigation; by subsequent order dated August 26, 2013, the court decertified one of the classes. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The class certified in the court’s July 12, 2013 order, as limited by the court’s August 26, 2013 order, is limited to holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York subject to New York law and subject to Phoenix Life’s 2011 COI rate adjustment. By order dated April 29, 2014, the court denied Martin Fleisher’s motion for summary judgment in the Fleisher Litigation in its entirety, while granting in part and denying in part Phoenix Life’s motion for summary judgment.

The Company, a subsidiary of Phoenix Life, has been named as a defendant in six actions challenging its COI rate adjustments implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. Five cases have been brought against the Company, while one case has been brought against the Company and Phoenix Life. These six cases, only one of which is styled as a class action, have been brought by (1) Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No. 1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March 14, 2012; the “Tiger Capital Litigation”); (2-5) U.S. Bank National Association, as securities intermediary for Lima Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No. 1:12-cv-06811-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on November 16, 2011; 3: C.A. No. 1:13-cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March 8, 2013; collectively, the “U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations”); (4: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint originally filed on March 6, 2013, in the District of Delaware and transferred by order dated April 22, 2014, to the District of Connecticut; and 5: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-01398-WWE, U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint filed on September 23, 2014, and amended on October 16, 2014, to add Phoenix Life as a defendant (collectively the “U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations”)); and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-cv-8714; U.S. Dist. Ct.; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on October 31, 2014; the “SPRR Litigation”). SPRR LLC filed suit against the Company, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, challenging COI rate adjustments implemented by the Company in 2011.

The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations were assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation, and discovery in these four actions has concluded. By orders in both U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations dated May 23, 2014, the court denied U.S. Bank’s motions for summary judgment in their entirety, while granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motions for summary judgment. U.S. Bank moved for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment decisions in the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, which the court denied by orders dated June 4, 2014. By order in the Tiger Capital Litigation dated July 23, 2014, the court denied Tiger Capital’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, while granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff in the Tiger Capital Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff in the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations seeks damages and attorneys’ fees for breach of contract and other common law and statutory claims. The plaintiff in the SPRR Litigation seeks damages for breach of contract for a nationwide class of policyholders.

The Fleisher Litigation, the U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations and the Tiger Capital Litigation are scheduled for consecutive trials commencing on June 15, 2015.

Complaints to state insurance departments regarding the Company’s COI rate adjustments have also prompted regulatory inquiries or investigations in several states, with two of such states (California and Wisconsin) issuing letters directing the Company to take remedial action in response to complaints by a single policyholder. The Company disagrees with both states’ positions. On March 23, 2015, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in Wisconsin ordered PHL Variable to pay restitution to current and former owners of seven policies and imposed a fine on PHL Variable which, in a total amount, does not have a material impact on PHL Variable’s financial position (Office of the Commissioner of Insurance Case No. 13- C35362). PHL Variable disagrees with the ALJ’s determination and intends to appeal the order.

Phoenix Life and the Company believe that they have meritorious defenses against all of these lawsuits and regulatory directives and intend to vigorously defend against them, including by appeal if necessary. The outcome of these matters is uncertain and any potential losses cannot be reasonably estimated.

Regulatory matters

State regulatory bodies, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the IRS and other regulatory bodies regularly make inquiries of us and, from time to time, conduct examinations or investigations concerning our compliance with laws and regulations related to, among other things, our insurance and broker-dealer subsidiaries, securities offerings and registered products. We endeavor to respond to such inquiries in an appropriate way and to take corrective action if warranted. Further, Phoenix is providing to the SEC certain information and documentation regarding the restatement of its prior period financial statements and the staff of the SEC has indicated to Phoenix that the matter remains subject to further investigation and potential further regulatory action. We cannot predict the outcome of any of such investigations or actions related to these or other matters.

Regulatory actions may be difficult to assess or quantify. The nature and magnitude of their outcomes may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. It is not feasible to predict or determine the ultimate outcome of all pending inquiries, investigations, legal proceedings and other regulatory actions, or to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses. Based on current information, we believe that the outcomes of our regulatory matters are not likely, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. However, given the inherent unpredictability of regulatory matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on our financial statements in particular quarterly or annual periods.

State Insurance Department Examinations

During 2012 and 2013, the Connecticut Insurance Department conducted its routine financial and market conduct examination of the Company and two other Connecticut-domiciled insurance affiliates. The Connecticut Insurance Department released its financial examination report for the Company on May 28, 2014 and its market conduct examination report on December 29, 2014.

Unclaimed Property Inquiries

In late 2012, Phoenix and the Company and their affiliates received separate notices from Unclaimed Property Clearing House (“UPCH”) and Kelmar Associates, LLC (“Kelmar”) that UPCH and Kelmar had been authorized by the unclaimed property administrators in certain states to conduct unclaimed property audits. The audits began in 2013 and are being conducted on the Phoenix enterprise with a focus on death benefit payments; however, all amounts owed by any aspect of the Phoenix enterprise are also a focus. This includes any payments to vendors, brokers, former employees and shareholders. UPCH represents 31 states and the District of Columbia and Kelmar represents seven states.