LITIGATION	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	LITIGATION Insurance Litigation In July 2011, a derivative action was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Mary Ann Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds Management Group, LLC (“Sivolella Litigation”) and a substantially similar action was filed in January 2013 entitled Sanford et al. v. AX Equitable FMG (“Sanford Litigation”). These lawsuits were filed on behalf of a total of twelve mutual funds and, among other things, seek recovery under (i) Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable Funds Management Group, LLC (“AXA Equitable FMG”) for investment management services and administrative services and (ii) a variety of other theories including unjust enrichment. The Sivolella Litigation and the Sanford Litigation were consolidated and a 25-day trial commenced in January 2016 and concluded in February 2016. In August 2016, the Court issued its decision in favor of AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG, finding that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG breached their fiduciary duty in violation of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act or show any actual damages. In September 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the District Court’s trial opinion and to amend or make new findings of fact and/or conclusions of law. In December 2016, the Court issued an order denying the motion to amend and Plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities that, between 2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable (the “Policies”). The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the collateral for certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies was supported by parental guarantees, an omission that allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its “financial condition” and “legal reserve system.” The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In April 2015, a second action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was filed on behalf of a putative class of variable annuity holders with “Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders,” entitled Calvin W. Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The new action covers the same class period, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as the Ross action. In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough litigation on similar grounds as the Ross litigation. In December 2015, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs motion to consolidate their appeals but ordered that the appeals be heard together before a single panel of judges. In February 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed the decisions of the district court in favor of AXA Equitable. In November 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all AXA Equitable variable life insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their policy accounts to investments in AXA Equitable’s separate accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof. The action asserts that AXA Equitable breached its variable life insurance contracts by implementing the volatility management strategy. In February 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint. In March 2016, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In August 2015, another lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O’Donnell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently became subject to the volatility management strategy and who suffered injury as a result thereof. Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that AXA Equitable implemented the volatility management strategy in violation of applicable law. In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners of UL policies subject to AXA Equitable’s cost of insurance (“COI”) increase. In early 2016, AXA Equitable raised COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above. The current complaint alleges a claim for breach of contract and a claim that the AXA Equitable made misrepresentations in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law (“Section 4226”). Plaintiff seeks (a) with respect to its breach of contract claim, compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest, and (b) with respect to its claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the Plaintiff and the putative class. AXA Equitable’s response to the complaint was filed in February 2017. Additionally, a separate putative class action and five individual actions challenging the COI increase have been filed against AXA Equitable. AllianceBernstein Litigation During the first quarter of 2012, AB received a legal letter of claim (the “Letter of Claim”) sent on behalf of Philips Pension Trustees Limited and Philips Electronics UK Limited (“Philips”), a former pension fund client, alleging that AB Limited (one of AB’s subsidiaries organized in the United Kingdom) was negligent and failed to meet certain applicable standards of care with respect to the initial investment in, and management of, a £500 million portfolio of U.S. mortgage-backed securities. Philips has alleged damages ranging between $177 million and $234 million, plus compound interest on an alleged $125 million of realized losses in the portfolio. On January 2, 2014, Philips filed a claim form (“Claim”) in the High Court of Justice in London, England, which formally commenced litigation with respect to the allegations in the Letter of Claim. By agreement dated November 26, 2016, the terms of which are confidential, this matter was settled. AB’s contribution to the settlement amount was paid by AB’s relevant insurance carriers. _______________________________________________________________________________ Although the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters generally cannot be predicted with certainty, management intends to vigorously defend against the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the actions described above and believes that the ultimate resolution of the matters described therein involving AXA Equitable and/or its subsidiaries should not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position of AXA Equitable. Management cannot make an estimate of loss, if any, or predict whether or not any of the matters described above will have a material adverse effect on AXA Equitable’s consolidated results of operations in any particular period. In addition to the matters described above, a number of lawsuits, claims, assessments and regulatory inquiries have been filed or commenced against life and health insurers and asset managers in the jurisdictions in which AXA Equitable and its respective subsidiaries do business. These actions and proceedings involve, among other things, insurers’ sales practices, alleged agent misconduct, alleged failure to properly supervise agents, contract administration, product design, features and accompanying disclosure, cost of insurance increases, the use of captive reinsurers, payments of death benefits and the reporting and escheatment of unclaimed property, alleged breach of fiduciary duties, alleged mismanagement of client funds and other matters. In addition, a number of lawsuits, claims, assessments and regulatory inquiries have been filed or commenced against businesses in the jurisdictions in which AXA Equitable and its subsidiaries do business, including actions and proceedings related to alleged discrimination, alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with qualified pension plans and other general business-related matters. Some of the matters have resulted in the award of substantial fines and judgments, including material amounts of punitive damages, or in substantial settlements. Courts, juries and regulators often have substantial discretion in awarding damage awards and fines, including punitive damages. AXA Equitable and its subsidiaries from time to time are involved in such actions and proceedings. While the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of management no such matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on AXA Equitable’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, it should be noted that the frequency of large damage awards, including large punitive damage awards and regulatory fines that bear little or no relation to actual economic damages incurred, continues to create the potential for an unpredictable judgment in any given matter.

LITIGATION

Insurance Litigation

In July 2011, a derivative action was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Mary Ann Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds Management Group, LLC (“Sivolella Litigation”) and a substantially similar action was filed in January 2013 entitled Sanford et al. v. AX Equitable FMG (“Sanford Litigation”). These lawsuits were filed on behalf of a total of twelve mutual funds and, among other things, seek recovery under (i) Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable Funds Management Group, LLC (“AXA Equitable FMG”) for investment management services and administrative services and (ii) a variety of other theories including unjust enrichment. The Sivolella Litigation and the Sanford Litigation were consolidated and a 25-day trial commenced in January 2016 and concluded in February 2016. In August 2016, the Court issued its decision in favor of AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG, finding that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG breached their fiduciary duty in violation of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act or show any actual damages. In September 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the District Court’s trial opinion and to amend or make new findings of fact and/or conclusions of law. In December 2016, the Court issued an order denying the motion to amend and Plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities that, between 2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable (the “Policies”). The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the collateral for certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies was supported by parental guarantees, an omission that allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its “financial condition” and “legal reserve system.” The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In April 2015, a second action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was filed on behalf of a putative class of variable annuity holders with “Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders,” entitled Calvin W. Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The new action covers the same class period, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as the Ross action. In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough litigation on similar grounds as the Ross litigation. In December 2015, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs motion to consolidate their appeals but ordered that the appeals be heard together before a single panel of judges. In February 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed the decisions of the district court in favor of AXA Equitable.

In November 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all AXA Equitable variable life insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their policy accounts to investments in AXA Equitable’s separate accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof. The action asserts that AXA Equitable breached its variable life insurance contracts by implementing the volatility management strategy. In February 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint. In March 2016, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In August 2015, another lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O’Donnell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently became subject to the volatility management strategy and who suffered injury as a result thereof. Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that AXA Equitable implemented the volatility management strategy in violation of applicable law. In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners of UL policies subject to AXA Equitable’s cost of insurance (“COI”) increase. In early 2016, AXA Equitable raised COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above. The current complaint alleges a claim for breach of contract and a claim that the AXA Equitable made misrepresentations in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law (“Section 4226”). Plaintiff seeks (a) with respect to its breach of contract claim, compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest, and (b) with respect to its claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the Plaintiff and the putative class. AXA Equitable’s response to the complaint was filed in February 2017. Additionally, a separate putative class action and five individual actions challenging the COI increase have been filed against AXA Equitable.

AllianceBernstein Litigation

During the first quarter of 2012, AB received a legal letter of claim (the “Letter of Claim”) sent on behalf of Philips Pension Trustees Limited and Philips Electronics UK Limited (“Philips”), a former pension fund client, alleging that AB Limited (one of AB’s subsidiaries organized in the United Kingdom) was negligent and failed to meet certain applicable standards of care with respect to the initial investment in, and management of, a £500 million portfolio of U.S. mortgage-backed securities. Philips has alleged damages ranging between $177 million and $234 million, plus compound interest on an alleged $125 million of realized losses in the portfolio. On January 2, 2014, Philips filed a claim form (“Claim”) in the High Court of Justice in London, England, which formally commenced litigation with respect to the allegations in the Letter of Claim. By agreement dated November 26, 2016, the terms of which are confidential, this matter was settled. AB’s contribution to the settlement amount was paid by AB’s relevant insurance carriers.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Although the outcome of litigation and regulatory matters generally cannot be predicted with certainty, management intends to vigorously defend against the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the actions described above and believes that the ultimate resolution of the matters described therein involving AXA Equitable and/or its subsidiaries should not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position of AXA Equitable. Management cannot make an estimate of loss, if any, or predict whether or not any of the matters described above will have a material adverse effect on AXA Equitable’s consolidated results of operations in any particular period.

In addition to the matters described above, a number of lawsuits, claims, assessments and regulatory inquiries have been filed or commenced against life and health insurers and asset managers in the jurisdictions in which AXA Equitable and its respective subsidiaries do business. These actions and proceedings involve, among other things, insurers’ sales practices, alleged agent misconduct, alleged failure to properly supervise agents, contract administration, product design, features and accompanying disclosure, cost of insurance increases, the use of captive reinsurers, payments of death benefits and the reporting and escheatment of unclaimed property, alleged breach of fiduciary duties, alleged mismanagement of client funds and other matters. In addition, a number of lawsuits, claims, assessments and regulatory inquiries have been filed or commenced against businesses in the jurisdictions in which AXA Equitable and its subsidiaries do business, including actions and proceedings related to alleged discrimination, alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with qualified pension plans and other general business-related matters. Some of the matters have resulted in the award of substantial fines and judgments, including material amounts of punitive damages, or in substantial settlements. Courts, juries and regulators often have substantial discretion in awarding damage awards and fines, including punitive damages. AXA Equitable and its subsidiaries from time to time are involved in such actions and proceedings. While the ultimate outcome of such matters cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of management no such matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on AXA Equitable’s consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, it should be noted that the frequency of large damage awards, including large punitive damage awards and regulatory fines that bear little or no relation to actual economic damages incurred, continues to create the potential for an unpredictable judgment in any given matter.