Contingent Liabilities	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
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 ultimate 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 beyond the amounts already reported in these financial statements. 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 in 2014. Cases Brought by Policy Investors 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 and the Company 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 cost of insurance (“COI”) rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life in 2010 and 2011 in certain universal life insurance policies. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The class certified by the court 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. The Company has been named as a defendant in six actions challenging its COI rate adjustments in certain universal life insurance policies implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. Phoenix Life and the Company are referred to as the “Phoenix Life Companies.” 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, and consolidated with No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE (collectively the “U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations”)); and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-cv-8714-CM; 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. 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, which has been reassigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation, Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, seeks damages for breach of contract for a nationwide class of policyholders. The Phoenix Life Companies reached a definitive agreement to settle a COI case, the Tiger Capital Litigation (Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No. 1:12-cv-02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) on a basis that will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. On June 3, 2015, the parties to the Tiger Capital Litigation advised the court of the settlement, which includes Tiger Capital, LLC’s participation in the class Settlement described below. The Phoenix Life Companies reached an agreement as of April 30, 2015, memorialized in a formal settlement agreement executed on May 29, 2015, with SPRR, LLC, Martin Fleisher, as trustee of the Michael Moss Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, and Jonathan Berck, as trustee of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Insurance Trust (collectively, the SPRR Litigation and the Fleisher Litigation plaintiffs referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), to resolve the Fleisher Litigation and SPRR Litigation (the “Settlement”). A motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 29, 2015. On June 3, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, ordered notice be given to class members, and set a hearing on September 9, 2015 to address, among other things, final approval of the Settlement. The proposed Settlement class consists of all policyholders that were subject to the 2010 or 2011 COI rate adjustments (collectively, the “Settlement Class”), including the policies within the above-named COI cases, and will be structured to allow members of the Settlement Class to opt out of the Settlement. The Phoenix Life Companies will establish a Settlement fund, which may be reduced proportionally for any opt-outs, and will pay a class counsel fee if the Settlement is approved. The Phoenix Life Companies will be released by all participating members of the Settlement Class, and the COI rate adjustment for policies participating in the Settlement Class will remain in effect. The Phoenix Life Companies agreed to pay a total of $48.5 million, as reduced for any opt-outs, in connection with the Settlement. The Phoenix Life Companies agreed not to impose additional increases to COI rates on policies participating in the Settlement Class through the end of 2020, and not to challenge the validity of policies participating in the Settlement Class for lack of insurable interest or misrepresentations in the policy applications. The Settlement is subject to certain conditions and final court approval is intended to resolve all pending COI cases, other than for policyholders who opt-out of the Settlement. Under the Settlement, policyholders who are members of the Settlement Class, including those which have filed individual actions relating to COI rate adjustments, may opt out of the Settlement and separately litigate their claims. The opt-out period expired on July 17, 2015. Opt-out notices have been received by the Phoenix Life Companies, including from U.S. Bank, a party to four COI cases. The Phoenix Life Companies are currently unable to estimate the damages that policyholders who opt out of the Settlement may or may not collect in litigation against the Phoenix Life Companies. There can be no assurance that the ultimate cost to the Company will not be higher or lower than $36.4 million. 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 has appealed the order. For any cases or regulatory directives not resolved by the Settlement, 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. For any matters not resolved by the Settlement, the outcome is uncertain and any potential losses cannot be reasonably estimated. Regulatory matters State regulatory bodies, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Internal Revenue Service (“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 restatements 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.

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 ultimate 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 beyond the amounts already reported in these financial statements. 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 in 2014.

Cases Brought by Policy Investors

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 and the Company 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 cost of insurance (“COI”) rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life in 2010 and 2011 in certain universal life insurance policies. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The class certified by the court 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.

The Company has been named as a defendant in six actions challenging its COI rate adjustments in certain universal life insurance policies implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. Phoenix Life and the Company are referred to as the “Phoenix Life Companies.” 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, and consolidated with No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE (collectively the “U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations”)); and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-cv-8714-CM; 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. 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, which has been reassigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation, Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, seeks damages for breach of contract for a nationwide class of policyholders.

The Phoenix Life Companies reached a definitive agreement to settle a COI case, the Tiger Capital Litigation (Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No. 1:12-cv-02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) on a basis that will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. On June 3, 2015, the parties to the Tiger Capital Litigation advised the court of the settlement, which includes Tiger Capital, LLC’s participation in the class Settlement described below.

The Phoenix Life Companies reached an agreement as of April 30, 2015, memorialized in a formal settlement agreement executed on May 29, 2015, with SPRR, LLC, Martin Fleisher, as trustee of the Michael Moss Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, and Jonathan Berck, as trustee of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Insurance Trust (collectively, the SPRR Litigation and the Fleisher Litigation plaintiffs referred to as the “Plaintiffs”), to resolve the Fleisher Litigation and SPRR Litigation (the “Settlement”). A motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 29, 2015. On June 3, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, ordered notice be given to class members, and set a hearing on September 9, 2015 to address, among other things, final approval of the Settlement. The proposed Settlement class consists of all policyholders that were subject to the 2010 or 2011 COI rate adjustments (collectively, the “Settlement Class”), including the policies within the above-named COI cases, and will be structured to allow members of the Settlement Class to opt out of the Settlement. The Phoenix Life Companies will establish a Settlement fund, which may be reduced proportionally for any opt-outs, and will pay a class counsel fee if the Settlement is approved. The Phoenix Life Companies will be released by all participating members of the Settlement Class, and the COI rate adjustment for policies participating in the Settlement Class will remain in effect. The Phoenix Life Companies agreed to pay a total of $48.5 million, as reduced for any opt-outs, in connection with the Settlement. The Phoenix Life Companies agreed not to impose additional increases to COI rates on policies participating in the Settlement Class through the end of 2020, and not to challenge the validity of policies participating in the Settlement Class for lack of insurable interest or misrepresentations in the policy applications. The Settlement is subject to certain conditions and final court approval is intended to resolve all pending COI cases, other than for policyholders who opt-out of the Settlement. Under the Settlement, policyholders who are members of the Settlement Class, including those which have filed individual actions relating to COI rate adjustments, may opt out of the Settlement and separately litigate their claims. The opt-out period expired on July 17, 2015. Opt-out notices have been received by the Phoenix Life Companies, including from U.S. Bank, a party to four COI cases. The Phoenix Life Companies are currently unable to estimate the damages that policyholders who opt out of the Settlement may or may not collect in litigation against the Phoenix Life Companies. There can be no assurance that the ultimate cost to the Company will not be higher or lower than $36.4 million.

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 has appealed the order.

For any cases or regulatory directives not resolved by the Settlement, 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. For any matters not resolved by the Settlement, the outcome is uncertain and any potential losses cannot be reasonably estimated.

Regulatory matters

State regulatory bodies, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Internal Revenue Service (“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 restatements 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.