Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	FGL is involved in various pending or threatened legal proceedings, including purported class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. In some instances, these proceedings include claims for unspecified or substantial punitive damages and similar types of relief in addition to amounts for alleged contractual liability or requests for equitable relief. In the opinion of FGL’s management and in light of existing insurance and other potential indemnification, reinsurance and established accruals, such litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FGL’s financial position, although it is possible that the results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome in any one period. FGL is assessed amounts by the state guaranty funds to cover losses to policyholders of insolvent or rehabilitated insurance companies. Those mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in certain states. At June 30, 2016, FGL has accrued $3.0 for guaranty fund assessments that is expected to be offset by estimated future premium tax deductions of $2.9. FGL has received inquiries from a number of state regulatory authorities regarding its use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File (the “Death Master File”) and compliance with state claims practices regulation. Legislation requiring insurance companies to use the Death Master File to identify potential claims has been enacted in a number of states. As a result of these legislative and regulatory developments, in May 2012, FGL undertook an initiative to use the Death Master File and other publicly available databases to identify persons potentially entitled to benefits under life insurance policies, annuities and retained asset accounts. In addition, FGL has received audit and examination notices from several state agencies responsible for escheatment and unclaimed property regulation in those states and in some cases has challenged the audits including litigation against the Controller for the State of California which is subject to a stay. FGL believes its current accrual will cover the reasonably estimated liability arising out of these developments, however costs that cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of this filing are possible as a result of ongoing regulatory developments and other future requirements related to these matters. On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. (“Cressy”) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the “LA Court”), Case No. BC-514340. The complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an action in federal court. The complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on defendants’ advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. On January 2, 2015, the LA Court entered final judgment in Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, FGL tendered $1.3 to the settlement administrator for a claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement, which enhancement began on October 12, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the January 2, 2015 final order and judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016. At June 30, 2016, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be $9.2, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $0.6. FGL has incurred and paid $5.0 related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3 related to settlement costs as of June 30, 2016. Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff Ludwick”) v. Harbinger Group Inc. (HRG’s former corporate name), FGL Insurance, Raven Re, and Front Street Cayman (the “Defendants”). The complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), requested injunctive and declaratory relief, sought unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not specified, treble damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity. On April 13, 2015, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a notice of appeal. As of June 30, 2016, HRG and FGL did not have sufficient information to determine whether FGL is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1.5, which was accrued during the nine months ended June 30, 2016. Compass Various federal, state and local laws and regulations covering discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, may affect Compass’ operations and the costs of its oil and natural gas exploitation, development and production operations. Compass does not anticipate that it will be required in the foreseeable future to expend amounts material in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole by reason of environmental laws and regulations. Because these laws and regulations are constantly being changed, Compass is unable to predict the conditions and other factors over which Compass does not exercise control that may give rise to environmental liabilities affecting it. Salus On March 17, 2015, Salus, in its capacity as agent for certain secured lenders of RadioShack under a $250.0 term loan, filed an adversary complaint in the RadioShack bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against certain other secured asset-based lenders (including Standard General L.P., its affiliates and certain hedge fund lenders) of RadioShack (the “ABL Lenders”) under a $585.0 term and revolving loan facility. The adversary complaint sought (i) a determination that the liens securing the term loan provided by Salus to RadioShack have priority over the ABL Lenders’ liens with respect to the termed out portion of the ABL Lenders’ loans to RadioShack and (ii) disgorgement of payments received from RadioShack by the ABL Lenders in connection with the termed out loans. The ABL Lenders moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, and on May 11, 2016, the bankruptcy court issued a memorandum opinion and related order (the “Memorandum Opinion and Order”) granting such motion to dismiss with prejudice. On May 24, 2016, Salus filed a notice of appeal of the Memorandum Opinion and Order. On June 8, 2016, Salus entered into a stipulation with the defendant ABL Lenders regarding distribution of the encumbered cash to Salus and on June 10, 2016 the bankruptcy court entered the order approving such stipulation. In accordance with the stipulation, Salus dismissed the appeal, with prejudice, on June 15, 2016. Guarantees HGI Funding has an agreement with FGL to guarantee, subject to certain terms and in the event of nonperformance by the third party borrowers and Salus, the fulfillment of accumulated foreign exchange losses recoverable under one loan originated by Salus that is denominated in CAD. At June 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015, Salus’ obligation to FGL related to such foreign exchange losses was $8.6 and $10.7, respectively. See Note 9, Debt for details of the limited unconditional and irrevocable guarantee that was provided by HGI Funding for certain of the payment obligations under the Compass Credit Agreement. Unfunded Asset Based Lending Commitments Salus and FGL have unfunded investment commitments as of June 30, 2016 based upon the timing of when investments are executed compared to when the actual investments are funded, as some investments require that funding occur over a period of months or years. Through Salus, the Company enters into commitments to extend credit to meet the financing needs of its asset based lending customers upon satisfaction of certain conditions. At June 30, 2016, the notional amount of unfunded, legally binding lending commitments was approximately $25.4, of which $20.8 expires in 1 year or less, and the remainder expires between 1 and 5 years. FGL has unfunded investment commitments of $114.7 as of June 30, 2016.

FGL is involved in various pending or threatened legal proceedings, including purported class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. In some instances, these proceedings include claims for unspecified or substantial punitive damages and similar types of relief in addition to amounts for alleged contractual liability or requests for equitable relief. In the opinion of FGL’s management and in light of existing insurance and other potential indemnification, reinsurance and established accruals, such litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FGL’s financial position, although it is possible that the results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome in any one period.

FGL is assessed amounts by the state guaranty funds to cover losses to policyholders of insolvent or rehabilitated insurance companies. Those mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in certain states. At June 30, 2016, FGL has accrued $3.0 for guaranty fund assessments that is expected to be offset by estimated future premium tax deductions of $2.9.

FGL has received inquiries from a number of state regulatory authorities regarding its use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File (the “Death Master File”) and compliance with state claims practices regulation. Legislation requiring insurance companies to use the Death Master File to identify potential claims has been enacted in a number of states. As a result of these legislative and regulatory developments, in May 2012, FGL undertook an initiative to use the Death Master File and other publicly available databases to identify persons potentially entitled to benefits under life insurance policies, annuities and retained asset accounts. In addition, FGL has received audit and examination notices from several state agencies responsible for escheatment and unclaimed property regulation in those states and in some cases has challenged the audits including litigation against the Controller for the State of California which is subject to a stay. FGL believes its current accrual will cover the reasonably estimated liability arising out of these developments, however costs that cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of this filing are possible as a result of ongoing regulatory developments and other future requirements related to these matters.

On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. (“Cressy”) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the “LA Court”), Case No. BC-514340. The complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an action in federal court. The complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on defendants’ advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies.

On January 2, 2015, the LA Court entered final judgment in Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, FGL tendered $1.3 to the settlement administrator for a claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement, which enhancement began on October 12, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the January 2, 2015 final order and judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016.

At June 30, 2016, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be $9.2, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $0.6. FGL has incurred and paid $5.0 related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3 related to settlement costs as of June 30, 2016. Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiff Ludwick”) v. Harbinger Group Inc. (HRG’s former corporate name), FGL Insurance, Raven Re, and Front Street Cayman (the “Defendants”). The complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), requested injunctive and declaratory relief, sought unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not specified, treble damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity. On April 13, 2015, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a notice of appeal. As of June 30, 2016, HRG and FGL did not have sufficient information to determine whether FGL is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1.5, which was accrued during the nine months ended June 30, 2016.

Compass

Various federal, state and local laws and regulations covering discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, may affect Compass’ operations and the costs of its oil and natural gas exploitation, development and production operations. Compass does not anticipate that it will be required in the foreseeable future to expend amounts material in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole by reason of environmental laws and regulations. Because these laws and regulations are constantly being changed, Compass is unable to predict the conditions and other factors over which Compass does not exercise control that may give rise to environmental liabilities affecting it.

Salus

On March 17, 2015, Salus, in its capacity as agent for certain secured lenders of RadioShack under a $250.0 term loan, filed an adversary complaint in the RadioShack bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against certain other secured asset-based lenders (including Standard General L.P., its affiliates and certain hedge fund lenders) of RadioShack (the “ABL Lenders”) under a $585.0 term and revolving loan facility. The adversary complaint sought (i) a determination that the liens securing the term loan provided by Salus to RadioShack have priority over the ABL Lenders’ liens with respect to the termed out portion of the ABL Lenders’ loans to RadioShack and (ii) disgorgement of payments received from RadioShack by the ABL Lenders in connection with the termed out loans. The ABL Lenders moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, and on May 11, 2016, the bankruptcy court issued a memorandum opinion and related order (the “Memorandum Opinion and Order”) granting such motion to dismiss with prejudice. On May 24, 2016, Salus filed a notice of appeal of the Memorandum Opinion and Order. On June 8, 2016, Salus entered into a stipulation with the defendant ABL Lenders regarding distribution of the encumbered cash to Salus and on June 10, 2016 the bankruptcy court entered the order approving such stipulation. In accordance with the stipulation, Salus dismissed the appeal, with prejudice, on June 15, 2016.

Guarantees

HGI Funding has an agreement with FGL to guarantee, subject to certain terms and in the event of nonperformance by the third party borrowers and Salus, the fulfillment of accumulated foreign exchange losses recoverable under one loan originated by Salus that is denominated in CAD. At June 30, 2016 and September 30, 2015, Salus’ obligation to FGL related to such foreign exchange losses was $8.6 and $10.7, respectively.

See Note 9, Debt for details of the limited unconditional and irrevocable guarantee that was provided by HGI Funding for certain of the payment obligations under the Compass Credit Agreement.

Unfunded Asset Based Lending Commitments

Salus and FGL have unfunded investment commitments as of June 30, 2016 based upon the timing of when investments are executed compared to when the actual investments are funded, as some investments require that funding occur over a period of months or years.

Through Salus, the Company enters into commitments to extend credit to meet the financing needs of its asset based lending customers upon satisfaction of certain conditions. At June 30, 2016, the notional amount of unfunded, legally binding lending commitments was approximately $25.4, of which $20.8 expires in 1 year or less, and the remainder expires between 1 and 5 years.

FGL has unfunded investment commitments of $114.7 as of June 30, 2016.