LITIGATION AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	LITIGATION AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Legal Proceedings The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal actions in the normal course of business, in which claims for compensatory and punitive damages are asserted, some for substantial amounts. We recognize an estimated loss from these loss contingencies when we believe it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Some of the pending matters have been filed as purported class actions and some actions have been filed in certain jurisdictions that permit punitive damage awards that are disproportionate to the actual damages incurred. The amounts sought in certain of these actions are often large or indeterminate and the ultimate outcome of certain actions is difficult to predict. In the event of an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters, there is a possibility that the ultimate liability may be in excess of the liabilities we have established and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, the resolution of pending or future litigation may involve modifications to the terms of outstanding insurance policies or could impact the timing and amount of rate increases, which could adversely affect the future profitability of the related insurance policies. Based upon information presently available, and in light of legal, factual and other defenses available to the Company and its subsidiaries, the Company does not believe that it is probable that the ultimate liability from either pending or threatened legal actions, after consideration of existing loss provisions, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. However, given the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, there exists the possibility that such legal actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. In addition to the inherent difficulty of predicting litigation outcomes, particularly those that will be decided by a jury, some matters purport to seek substantial or an unspecified amount of damages for unsubstantiated conduct spanning several years based on complex legal theories and damages models. The alleged damages typically are indeterminate or not factually supported in the complaint, and, in any event, the Company's experience indicates that monetary demands for damages often bear little relation to the ultimate loss. In some cases, plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes in the litigation and class certification either has been denied or is pending and we have filed oppositions to class certification or sought to decertify a prior class certification. In addition, for many of these cases: (i) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (ii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (iii) there are novel legal issues presented. Accordingly, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, or predict the timing of the eventual resolution of these matters. The Company reviews these matters on an ongoing basis. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, the Company bases its assessment on the expected ultimate outcome following all appeals. On September 29, 2016, Washington National and Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company ("BCLIC") commenced an arbitration proceeding seeking compensatory, consequential and punitive damages against BRe based upon BRe’s incurable material breaches of the long-term care reinsurance agreements, conversion, fraud, and breaches of fiduciary duties and the obligation to deal honestly and in good faith. BRe filed a counterclaim against Washington National and BCLIC in the arbitration alleging damages relating to the reinsurance agreements and their termination. In addition, on September 29, 2016, a complaint was filed by BCLIC and Washington National in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company v. Moshe M. Feuer, Scott Taylor and David Levy, Case No. 16-cv-7646, alleging, among other claims, fraud/fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. These allegations relate to the long-term care reinsurance agreements between BRe and Washington National and BCLIC, respectively, and emanate from the undisclosed relationships between and among the defendants (who were the principal owners and officers of BRe) and Platinum Partners, LP ("Platinum") and its affiliates. On April 27, 2017, an amended complaint was filed adding Beechwood Capital Group, LLC as a defendant. Washington National and BCLIC intend to vigorously pursue their claims for damages and other remedies in the arbitration and the litigation described above. By public notice dated July 26, 2017, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority advised that, effective July 25, 2017, two individuals (the “Controllers”) had been appointed pursuant to Section 24(2)(h) of the Cayman Islands Insurance Law to assume control of the affairs of BRe. According to the public notice, effective with their appointment, the Controllers assumed immediate control of the affairs of BRe and have all the powers necessary to administer the affairs of BRe including power to terminate its insurance business. The Controllers are responsible for assessing the financial position of BRe and submitting a report to the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority by a date to be specified. We are in the process of assessing the potential impact of this action on the proceedings described in the foregoing paragraph. On July 20, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Hamilton County, Indiana Circuit Court, Signature Estates of Indiana, Inc. d/b/a Gordon Marketing, Stephens-Matthews Marketing, Inc., Shields Brokerage, Inc. and Edwin A Hildebrand d/b/a Hildebrand Insurance Services v. Conseco Medical Insurance Company, Conseco Medical Insurance Company a/k/a Washington National Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D02- 0707-PL-790. The Plaintiffs are independent insurance marketing organizations which previously marketed Conseco Medical Insurance Company ("CMIC") individual major medical products and which are claiming damages for allegedly fraudulent conduct by CMIC in withdrawing from this business in 2002. The Plaintiffs contend that they relied on CMIC’s alleged representations that its major medical business was profitable and that CMIC was committed to it. The Plaintiffs further allege that when CMIC exited the market, it caused agents that were previously writing business through their organizations to cease doing business with them, thereby causing irreparable damage. CMIC merged into Washington National, effective July 1, 2003. On December 16, 2016, following a jury trial, verdicts were entered in favor of the plaintiffs, and compensatory damages aggregating $4.7 million and punitive damages aggregating $6.0 million were awarded to the plaintiffs. Washington National filed post-trial motions requesting the court correct errors, grant a new trial, find that punitive damages were improper, and reduce both compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiffs filed motions requesting pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. On June 19, 2017, the court reduced punitive damages by $1.5 million and denied plaintiffs' motions for pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. Both sides have filed a Notice of Appeal. We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. Regulatory Examinations and Fines Insurance companies face significant risks related to regulatory investigations and actions. Regulatory investigations generally result from matters related to sales or underwriting practices, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claim payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, procedures related to canceling policies, changing the way cost of insurance charges are calculated for certain life insurance products or recommending unsuitable products to customers. We are, in the ordinary course of our business, subject to various examinations, inquiries and information requests from state, federal and other authorities. The ultimate outcome of these regulatory actions (including the costs of complying with information requests and policy reviews) cannot be predicted with certainty. In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these matters, the ultimate liability may be in excess of liabilities we have established and we could suffer significant reputational harm as a result of these matters, which could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In August 2011, we were notified of an examination to be done on behalf of a number of states for the purpose of determining compliance with unclaimed property laws by the Company and its subsidiaries. Such examination has included inquiries related to the use of data available on the U.S. Social Security Administration's Death Master File to identify instances where benefits under life insurance policies, annuities and retained asset accounts are payable. We are continuing to provide information to the examiners in response to their requests. A total of 38 states and the District of Columbia are currently participating in this examination.

LITIGATION AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Legal Proceedings

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal actions in the normal course of business, in which claims for compensatory and punitive damages are asserted, some for substantial amounts. We recognize an estimated loss from these loss contingencies when we believe it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Some of the pending matters have been filed as purported class actions and some actions have been filed in certain jurisdictions that permit punitive damage awards that are disproportionate to the actual damages incurred. The amounts sought in certain of these actions are often large or indeterminate and the ultimate outcome of certain actions is difficult to predict. In the event of an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters, there is a possibility that the ultimate liability may be in excess of the liabilities we have established and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, the resolution of pending or future litigation may involve modifications to the terms of outstanding insurance policies or could impact the timing and amount of rate increases, which could adversely affect the future profitability of the related insurance policies. Based upon information presently available, and in light of legal, factual and other defenses available to the Company and its subsidiaries, the Company does not believe that it is probable that the ultimate liability from either pending or threatened legal actions, after consideration of existing loss provisions, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows. However, given the inherent difficulty in predicting the outcome of legal proceedings, there exists the possibility that such legal actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, operating results or cash flows.

In addition to the inherent difficulty of predicting litigation outcomes, particularly those that will be decided by a jury, some matters purport to seek substantial or an unspecified amount of damages for unsubstantiated conduct spanning several years based on complex legal theories and damages models. The alleged damages typically are indeterminate or not factually supported in the complaint, and, in any event, the Company's experience indicates that monetary demands for damages often bear little relation to the ultimate loss. In some cases, plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes in the litigation and class certification either has been denied or is pending and we have filed oppositions to class certification or sought to decertify a prior class certification. In addition, for many of these cases: (i) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (ii) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and/or (iii) there are novel legal issues presented. Accordingly, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, or predict the timing of the eventual resolution of these matters. The Company reviews these matters on an ongoing basis. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, the Company bases its assessment on the expected ultimate outcome following all appeals.

On September 29, 2016, Washington National and Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company ("BCLIC") commenced an arbitration proceeding seeking compensatory, consequential and punitive damages against BRe based upon BRe’s incurable material breaches of the long-term care reinsurance agreements, conversion, fraud, and breaches of fiduciary duties and the obligation to deal honestly and in good faith. BRe filed a counterclaim against Washington National and BCLIC in the arbitration alleging damages relating to the reinsurance agreements and their termination. In addition, on September 29, 2016, a complaint was filed by BCLIC and Washington National in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company v. Moshe M. Feuer, Scott Taylor and David Levy, Case No. 16-cv-7646, alleging, among other claims, fraud/fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. These allegations relate to the long-term care reinsurance agreements between BRe and Washington National and BCLIC, respectively, and emanate from the undisclosed relationships between and among the defendants (who were the principal owners and officers of BRe) and Platinum Partners, LP ("Platinum") and its affiliates. On April 27, 2017, an amended complaint was filed adding Beechwood Capital Group, LLC as a defendant. Washington National and BCLIC intend to vigorously pursue their claims for damages and other remedies in the arbitration and the litigation described above.

By public notice dated July 26, 2017, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority advised that, effective July 25, 2017, two individuals (the “Controllers”) had been appointed pursuant to Section 24(2)(h) of the Cayman Islands Insurance Law to assume control of the affairs of BRe. According to the public notice, effective with their appointment, the Controllers assumed immediate control of the affairs of BRe and have all the powers necessary to administer the affairs of BRe including power to terminate its insurance business. The Controllers are responsible for assessing the financial position of BRe and submitting a report to the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority by a date to be specified. We are in the process of assessing the potential impact of this action on the proceedings described in the foregoing paragraph.

On July 20, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Hamilton County, Indiana Circuit Court, Signature Estates of Indiana, Inc. d/b/a Gordon Marketing, Stephens-Matthews Marketing, Inc., Shields Brokerage, Inc. and Edwin A Hildebrand d/b/a Hildebrand Insurance Services v. Conseco Medical Insurance Company, Conseco Medical Insurance Company a/k/a Washington National Insurance Company and Washington National Insurance Company, Cause No. 29D02- 0707-PL-790. The Plaintiffs are independent insurance marketing organizations which previously marketed Conseco Medical Insurance Company ("CMIC") individual major medical products and which are claiming damages for allegedly fraudulent conduct by CMIC in withdrawing from this business in 2002. The Plaintiffs contend that they relied on CMIC’s alleged representations that its major medical business was profitable and that CMIC was committed to it. The Plaintiffs further allege that when CMIC exited the market, it caused agents that were previously writing business through their organizations to cease doing business with them, thereby causing irreparable damage. CMIC merged into Washington National, effective July 1, 2003. On December 16, 2016, following a jury trial, verdicts were entered in favor of the plaintiffs, and compensatory damages aggregating $4.7 million and punitive damages aggregating $6.0 million were awarded to the plaintiffs. Washington National filed post-trial motions requesting the court correct errors, grant a new trial, find that punitive damages were improper, and reduce both compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiffs filed motions requesting pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. On June 19, 2017, the court reduced punitive damages by $1.5 million and denied plaintiffs' motions for pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. Both sides have filed a Notice of Appeal. We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously.

Regulatory Examinations and Fines

Insurance companies face significant risks related to regulatory investigations and actions. Regulatory investigations generally result from matters related to sales or underwriting practices, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claim payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, procedures related to canceling policies, changing the way cost of insurance charges are calculated for certain life insurance products or recommending unsuitable products to customers. We are, in the ordinary course of our business, subject to various examinations, inquiries and information requests from state, federal and other authorities. The ultimate outcome of these regulatory actions (including the costs of complying with information requests and policy reviews) cannot be predicted with certainty. In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these matters, the ultimate liability may be in excess of liabilities we have established and we could suffer significant reputational harm as a result of these matters, which could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In August 2011, we were notified of an examination to be done on behalf of a number of states for the purpose of determining compliance with unclaimed property laws by the Company and its subsidiaries. Such examination has included inquiries related to the use of data available on the U.S. Social Security Administration's Death Master File to identify instances where benefits under life insurance policies, annuities and retained asset accounts are payable. We are continuing to provide information to the examiners in response to their requests. A total of 38 states and the District of Columbia are currently participating in this examination.