13. Contingent Liabilities	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Notes to Financial Statements
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. It is believed 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 On February 12, 2014, PNX and the Company submitted an Offer of Settlement with the SEC pursuant to which PNX and the Company consented to the issuance of the form of an 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 (the “Order”). The Order was approved by the SEC on March 21, 2014. Pursuant to the Order, PNX and the Company have been directed 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. PNX was required by the Order to file its 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC by March 31, 2014. PNX filed its 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K before the opening of the market on April 1, 2014. Further, pursuant to the Order, PNX was required to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 (the “PNX Third Quarter 2012 Form 10-Q”) with the SEC on or before April 15, 2014 and the Company was required to file the 2012 Form 10-K with the SEC on or before April 15, 2014. The PNX Third Quarter 2012 Form 10-Q was filed with the SEC on April 23, 2014. The Company filed its 2012 Form 10-K with the SEC on April 25, 2014. In addition, PNX and the Company agreed to perform certain undertakings, including for the Company to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 by no later than April 30, 2014 and for PNX and the Company to file their 2013 Forms 10-K by no later than June 4, 2014 and July 3, 2014, respectively. Also pursuant to the undertakings, PNX and the Company would file their respective 2013 Forms 10-Q after the filing of their 2013 Forms 10-K. PNX intends to become timely with its periodic filings under the Exchange Act with the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2014. The Company intends to become timely with its periodic filings under the Exchange Act with the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2014. Finally, PNX and the Company each paid a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $375,000 to the United States Treasury following the entry of the Order. 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 PNX, Phoenix Life and PHL Variable 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 PNX 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 PHL Variable 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. 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. On August 2, 2012, Lima LS PLC filed a complaint against PNX, Phoenix Life and PHL Variable, 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 By order dated July 12, 2013, two separate classes were certified in an action pending 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.)) brought by Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the “Fleisher Litigation”), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against Phoenix Life. The complaint in the Fleisher Litigation, filed on November 8, 2011, challenges two COI rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life, which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language permitting such adjustments. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The classes certified in the court’s July 12, 2013 order are limited to holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York and subject to New York law. The Company, a subsidiary of Phoenix Life, has been named as a defendant in four actions challenging its COI rate adjustments implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. These four cases, which are not styled as class actions, have been brought against the Company 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”) and (2-4) 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”)); and 4: C.A. No. 1:13-cv-00368-GMS; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Del., complaint filed on March 6, 2013; the “Delaware Litigation”). The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations have been assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation, and discovery in these four actions is being coordinated by the court; the Delaware Litigation is proceeding separately and by order dated April 22, 2014 was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs seek damages and attorneys’ fees for breach of contract and other common law and statutory claims. 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 and, on April 30, 2013, Wisconsin commenced an administrative hearing to obtain a formal ruling on its position, which is pending (OCI Case No. 13- C35362). The Company and Phoenix Life believe that they have meritorious defenses against all of these lawsuits and regulatory directives and intend to vigorously defend against them. The outcome of these matters is uncertain and any potential losses cannot be reasonably estimated. Notice of Claim from Reinsurer On June 6, 2012, one of the reinsurers of the Company provided notice of a claim, seeking relief under two treaties. This matter was settled effective July 1, 2013 and was resolved without material impact on the financial results of the Company. Regulatory matters State regulatory bodies, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 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 securities offerings and registered products. We endeavor to respond to such inquiries in an appropriate way and to take corrective action if warranted. Further, PNX is providing to the SEC certain information and documentation regarding the Restatement and the staff of the SEC has indicated to PNX 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 examination of the Company and two other Connecticut-domiciled insurance affiliates. A report from the Connecticut Insurance Department is expected in 2014. In 2013, the Connecticut Insurance Department commenced a market conduct examination of the Company and two other Connecticut-domiciled insurance affiliates. The report from this examination will also be available in 2014. Unclaimed Property Inquiries In late 2012, PNX 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 PNX enterprise with a focus on death benefit payments; however, all amounts owed by any aspect of the PNX enterprise are also a focus. This includes any payments to vendors, brokers, former employees and shareholders. UPCH represents thirty-three states and the District of Columbia and Kelmar represents six states.

13. Contingent Liabilities

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

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. It is believed 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

On February 12, 2014, PNX and the Company submitted an Offer of Settlement with the SEC pursuant to which PNX and the Company consented to the issuance of the form of an 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 (the “Order”). The Order was approved by the SEC on March 21, 2014. Pursuant to the Order, PNX and the Company have been directed 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. PNX was required by the Order to file its 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC by March 31, 2014. PNX filed its 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K before the opening of the market on April 1, 2014. Further, pursuant to the Order, PNX was required to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 (the “PNX Third Quarter 2012 Form 10-Q”) with the SEC on or before April 15, 2014 and the Company was required to file the 2012 Form 10-K with the SEC on or before April 15, 2014. The PNX Third Quarter 2012 Form 10-Q was filed with the SEC on April 23, 2014. The Company filed its 2012 Form 10-K with the SEC on April 25, 2014. In addition, PNX and the Company agreed to perform certain undertakings, including for the Company to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 by no later than April 30, 2014 and for PNX and the Company to file their 2013 Forms 10-K by no later than June 4, 2014 and July 3, 2014, respectively. Also pursuant to the undertakings, PNX and the Company would file their respective 2013 Forms 10-Q after the filing of their 2013 Forms 10-K. PNX intends to become timely with its periodic filings under the Exchange Act with the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2014. The Company intends to become timely with its periodic filings under the Exchange Act with the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2014. Finally, PNX and the Company each paid a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $375,000 to the United States Treasury following the entry of the Order.

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 PNX, Phoenix Life and PHL Variable 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 PNX 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 PHL Variable 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. 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.

On August 2, 2012, Lima LS PLC filed a complaint against PNX, Phoenix Life and PHL Variable, 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

By order dated July 12, 2013, two separate classes were certified in an action pending 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.)) brought by Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the “Fleisher Litigation”), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against Phoenix Life. The complaint in the Fleisher Litigation, filed on November 8, 2011, challenges two COI rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life, which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language permitting such adjustments. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The classes certified in the court’s July 12, 2013 order are limited to holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York and subject to New York law.

The Company, a subsidiary of Phoenix Life, has been named as a defendant in four actions challenging its COI rate adjustments implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments. These four cases, which are not styled as class actions, have been brought against the Company 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”) and (2-4) 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”)); and 4: C.A. No. 1:13-cv-00368-GMS; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Del., complaint filed on March 6, 2013; the “Delaware Litigation”). The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations have been assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation, and discovery in these four actions is being coordinated by the court; the Delaware Litigation is proceeding separately and by order dated April 22, 2014 was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs seek damages and attorneys’ fees for breach of contract and other common law and statutory claims.

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 and, on April 30, 2013, Wisconsin commenced an administrative hearing to obtain a formal ruling on its position, which is pending (OCI Case No. 13- C35362).

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

Notice of Claim from Reinsurer

On June 6, 2012, one of the reinsurers of the Company provided notice of a claim, seeking relief under two treaties. This matter was settled effective July 1, 2013 and was resolved without material impact on the financial results of the Company.

Regulatory matters

State regulatory bodies, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 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 securities offerings and registered products. We endeavor to respond to such inquiries in an appropriate way and to take corrective action if warranted. Further, PNX is providing to the SEC certain information and documentation regarding the Restatement and the staff of the SEC has indicated to PNX 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 examination of the Company and two other Connecticut-domiciled insurance affiliates. A report from the Connecticut Insurance Department is expected in 2014.

In 2013, the Connecticut Insurance Department commenced a market conduct examination of the Company and two other Connecticut-domiciled insurance affiliates. The report from this examination will also be available in 2014.

Unclaimed Property Inquiries

In late 2012, PNX 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 PNX enterprise with a focus on death benefit payments; however, all amounts owed by any aspect of the PNX enterprise are also a focus. This includes any payments to vendors, brokers, former employees and shareholders. UPCH represents thirty-three states and the District of Columbia and Kelmar represents six states.

- Definition

Disclosure of accounting policy for the claims loss reserve for insurance contracts with a life contingency (permanent life, some term life, accident and health, some annuities), describing the loss exposures and bases and methodologies for making the relevant accounting estimates.

+ References

Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 235

-SubTopic 10

-Section 50

-Paragraph 3

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6367646&loc=d3e18780-107790

Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Accounting Standards Codification

-Topic 944

-URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2303980

Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher SEC

-Name Regulation S-X (SX)

-Number 210

-Section 03

-Paragraph 13

-Subparagraph b

-Article 7

Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher AICPA

-Name Statement of Position (SOP)

-Number 94-5

-Paragraph 10

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher FASB

-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)

-Number 60

-Paragraph 60

-Subparagraph a, b

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

-Publisher AICPA

-Name Audit and Accounting Guide (AAG)

-Number AAG-PLI

-Paragraph 2, 34, 132, 133

-IssueDate 2006-09-01

-Chapter 4

-LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy.

+ Details