Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities	Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Commitments Through the normal course of investment operations, the Company commits to either purchase or sell securities, commercial mortgage loans, or money market instruments, at a specified future date and at a specified price or yield. The inability of counterparties to honor these commitments may result in either a higher or lower replacement cost. Also, there is likely to be a change in the value of the securities underlying the commitments. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had off-balance sheet commitments to purchase investments equal to their fair value of $433.2 and $536.4, respectively. Collateral Under the terms of the Company’s Over-The-Counter Derivative ISDA Agreements (“ISDA Agreements”), the Company may receive from, or deliver to, counterparties, collateral to assure that all terms of the ISDA Agreements will be met with regard to the CSA. The terms of the CSA call for the Company to pay interest on any cash received equal to the Federal Funds rate. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company held $98.3 and $110.0, of cash collateral, respectively, which was included in Payables under securities loan agreement, including collateral held, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. In addition, as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company delivered collateral of $86.3 and $77.9, respectively, in fixed maturities pledged under derivatives contracts, which was included in Securities pledged on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Litigation and Regulatory Matters The Company is a defendant in a number of litigation matters arising from the conduct of its business, both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of these matters, claimants seek to recover very large or indeterminate amounts, including compensatory, punitive, treble and exemplary damages. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages and other relief. Claimants are not always required to specify the monetary damages they seek or they may be required only to state an amount sufficient to meet a court's jurisdictional requirements. Moreover, some jurisdictions allow claimants to allege monetary damages that far exceed any reasonable possible verdict. The variability in pleading requirement and past experience demonstrates that the monetary and other relief that may be requested in a lawsuit or claim oftentimes bears little relevance to the merits or potential value of a claim. Litigation against the Company includes a variety of claims including negligence, breach of contract, fraud, violation of regulation or statute, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, failure to supervise, elder abuse, and other torts. Due to the uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss is difficult to forecast and a determination of potential losses requires significant management judgment. As with other financial services companies, the Company periodically receives informal and formal requests for information from various state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations in connection with inquiries and investigations of the products and practices of the Company or the financial services industry. It is the practice of the Company to cooperate fully in these matters. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or to provide reasonably possible losses or ranges of losses for all pending regulatory matters and litigation. While it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial position, based on information currently known, management believes that the outcome of pending litigation and regulatory matters is not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and indeterminate amounts sought and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain of the Company's litigation or regulatory matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect upon the Company's results of operations or cash flows in a particular quarterly or annual period. For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For matters where management, however, believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual is required to be made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects both types of matters. For matters for which an accrual has been made, but there remains a reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amounts. For other matters included within this estimation, for which a reasonably possible but not probable, range of loss exists, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible and unaccrued loss or range of loss. As of March 31, 2012, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of any amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $45.0. For other matters, the Company is currently not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. It is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from plaintiffs and other parties, investigation of factual allegations, rulings by a court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement discussions. On a quarterly and annual basis, management reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory contingencies and updates our accruals, disclosures and reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. Litigation against the Company includes a case styled Healthcare Strategies, Inc., Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies Inc. 401(k) Plan v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (U.S.D.C. D. CT, filed February 22, 2011), which has been filed by the administrator of a 401(k) ERISA Plan who claims that the Company has entered into revenue sharing agreements with mutual funds and others in violation of the prohibited transaction rules of the Employee Retirement Income Act (“ERISA”). Among other things, Claimant seeks declaratory relief and the disgorgement of all revenue sharing payments and profits earned in connection with such payments, as well as attorney's fees. On January 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to be allowed to represent a class of similarly situated ERISA Plans. The Company denies Claimant's allegations and is vigorously defending this litigation. Currently, regulatory matters include an examination of the Company's policy for addressing and correcting an error that is made when processing the trade instructions of an ERISA plan or one of its participants. Under that policy, the subsidiary absorbs any loss and retains any gain that results from such an error correction. Some of the investigations, exams, inquiries and audits could result in regulatory action against the Company. The potential outcome of such action is difficult to predict but could subject the Company to adverse consequences, including, but not limited to, settlement payments, additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, and disgorgement of retained gains. They may also result in fines and penalties and changes to the Company's procedures for the identification and escheatment of abandoned property or the correction of processing errors, and other financial liability.

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Commitments

Through the normal course of investment operations, the Company commits to either purchase or sell securities, commercial mortgage loans, or money market instruments, at a specified future date and at a specified price or yield. The inability of counterparties to honor these commitments may result in either a higher or lower replacement cost. Also, there is likely to be a change in the value of the securities underlying the commitments.

At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had off-balance sheet commitments to purchase investments equal to their fair value of $433.2 and $536.4, respectively.

Collateral

Under the terms of the Company’s Over-The-Counter Derivative ISDA Agreements (“ISDA Agreements”), the Company may receive from, or deliver to, counterparties, collateral to assure that all terms of the ISDA Agreements will be met with regard to the CSA. The terms of the CSA call for the Company to pay interest on any cash received equal to the Federal Funds rate. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company held $98.3 and $110.0, of cash collateral, respectively, which was included in Payables under securities loan agreement, including collateral held, on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. In addition, as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company delivered collateral of $86.3 and $77.9, respectively, in fixed maturities pledged under derivatives contracts, which was included in Securities pledged on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

The Company is a defendant in a number of litigation matters arising from the conduct of its business, both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of these matters, claimants seek to recover very large or indeterminate amounts, including compensatory, punitive, treble and exemplary damages. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages and other relief. Claimants are not always required to specify the monetary damages they seek or they may be required only to state an amount sufficient to meet a court's jurisdictional requirements. Moreover, some jurisdictions allow claimants to allege monetary damages that far exceed any reasonable possible verdict. The variability in pleading requirement and past experience demonstrates that the monetary and other relief that may be requested in a lawsuit or claim oftentimes bears little relevance to the merits or potential value of a claim. Litigation against the Company includes a variety of claims including negligence, breach of contract, fraud, violation of regulation or statute, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, failure to supervise, elder abuse, and other torts. Due to the uncertainties of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss is difficult to forecast and a determination of potential losses requires significant management judgment.

As with other financial services companies, the Company periodically receives informal and formal requests for information from various state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations in connection with inquiries and investigations of the products and practices of the Company or the financial services industry. It is the practice of the Company to cooperate fully in these matters.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or to provide reasonably possible losses or ranges of losses for all pending regulatory matters and litigation. While it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial position, based on information currently known, management believes that the outcome of pending litigation and regulatory matters is not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and indeterminate amounts sought and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain of the Company's litigation or regulatory matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect upon the Company's results of operations or cash flows in a particular quarterly or annual period.

For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For matters where management, however, believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual is required to be made. Accordingly, the estimate contained in this paragraph reflects both types of matters. For matters for which an accrual has been made, but there remains a reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amounts. For other matters included within this estimation, for which a reasonably possible but not probable, range of loss exists, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible and unaccrued loss or range of loss. As of March 31, 2012, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of any amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $45.0.

For other matters, the Company is currently not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. It is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from plaintiffs and other parties, investigation of factual allegations, rulings by a court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement discussions. On a quarterly and annual basis, management reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory contingencies and updates our accruals, disclosures and reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Litigation against the Company includes a case styled Healthcare Strategies, Inc., Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies Inc. 401(k) Plan v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (U.S.D.C. D. CT, filed February 22, 2011), which has been filed by the administrator of a 401(k) ERISA Plan who claims that the Company has entered into revenue sharing agreements with mutual funds and others in violation of the prohibited transaction rules of the Employee Retirement Income Act (“ERISA”). Among other things, Claimant seeks declaratory relief and the disgorgement of all revenue sharing payments and profits earned in connection with such payments, as well as attorney's fees. On January 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting to be allowed to represent a class of similarly situated ERISA Plans. The Company denies Claimant's allegations and is vigorously defending this litigation.

Currently, regulatory matters include an examination of the Company's policy for addressing and correcting an error that is made when processing the trade instructions of an ERISA plan or one of its participants. Under that policy, the subsidiary absorbs any loss and retains any gain that results from such an error correction. Some of the investigations, exams, inquiries and audits could result in regulatory action against the Company. The potential outcome of such action is difficult to predict but could subject the Company to adverse consequences, including, but not limited to, settlement payments, additional payments to beneficiaries, additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws, and disgorgement of retained gains. They may also result in fines and penalties and changes to the Company's procedures for the identification and escheatment of abandoned property or the correction of processing errors, and other financial liability.