Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	8. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation The Company is involved in claims litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as a liability insurer defending or providing indemnity for third-party claims brought against insureds and as an insurer defending coverage claims brought against it. The Company accounts for such activity through the establishment of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary-course claims litigation, after consideration of provisions made for potential losses and costs of defense, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. The Company is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. These actions include, among others, putative state and federal class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, improper sales practices in connection with the sale of life insurance and other investment products; and improper fee arrangements in connection with investment products and structured settlements. The Company also is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of the Company. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. Mutual Funds Litigation — In October 2010, a derivative action was brought on behalf of six Hartford retail mutual funds in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC received excessive advisory and distribution fees in violation of its statutory fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. In February 2011, a nearly identical derivative action was brought against Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of six additional Hartford retail mutual funds. Both actions are assigned to the Honorable Renee Marie Bumb, a judge in the District of New Jersey who is sitting by designation with respect to the Delaware action. Plaintiffs in each action seek to rescind the investment management agreements and distribution plans between the Company and the mutual funds and to recover the total fees charged thereunder or, in the alternative, to recover any improper compensation the Company received. In addition, plaintiff in the New Jersey action also seeks recovery of lost earnings. The Company disputes the allegations and has moved to dismiss both actions. Derivative Commitments Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement as set by nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. If the legal entity’s financial strength were to fall below certain ratings, the counterparties to the derivative agreements could demand immediate and ongoing full collateralization and in certain instances demand immediate settlement of all outstanding derivative positions traded under each impacted bilateral agreement. The settlement amount is determined by netting the derivative positions transacted under each agreement. If the termination rights were to be exercised by the counterparties, it could impact the legal entity’s ability to conduct hedging activities by increasing the associated costs and decreasing the willingness of counterparties to transact with the legal entity. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position as of June 30, 2011, is $275. Of this $275, the legal entities have posted collateral of $261 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative market values as of June 30, 2011, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P could require approximately an additional $41 to be posted as collateral. Based on derivative market values as of June 30, 2011, a downgrade by either Moody’s or S&P of two levels below the legal entities’ current financial strength ratings would not require additional collateral to be posted beyond the $41 noted above. These collateral amounts could change as derivative market values change, as a result of changes in our hedging activities or to the extent changes in contractual terms are negotiated. The nature of the collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills and U.S. Treasury notes.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is involved in claims litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, both as a liability insurer defending or providing indemnity for third-party claims brought against insureds and as an insurer defending coverage claims brought against it. The Company accounts for such activity through the establishment of unpaid loss and loss adjustment expense reserves. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such ordinary-course claims litigation, after consideration of provisions made for potential losses and costs of defense, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

The Company is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. These actions include, among others, putative state and federal class actions seeking certification of a state or national class. Such putative class actions have alleged, for example, improper sales practices in connection with the sale of life insurance and other investment products; and improper fee arrangements in connection with investment products and structured settlements. The Company also is involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of insurance claims. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of the Company. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

Mutual Funds Litigation — In October 2010, a derivative action was brought on behalf of six Hartford retail mutual funds in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC received excessive advisory and distribution fees in violation of its statutory fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. In February 2011, a nearly identical derivative action was brought against Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of six additional Hartford retail mutual funds. Both actions are assigned to the Honorable Renee Marie Bumb, a judge in the District of New Jersey who is sitting by designation with respect to the Delaware action. Plaintiffs in each action seek to rescind the investment management agreements and distribution plans between the Company and the mutual funds and to recover the total fees charged thereunder or, in the alternative, to recover any improper compensation the Company received. In addition, plaintiff in the New Jersey action also seeks recovery of lost earnings. The Company disputes the allegations and has moved to dismiss both actions.

Derivative Commitments

Certain of the Company’s derivative agreements contain provisions that are tied to the financial strength ratings of the individual legal entity that entered into the derivative agreement as set by nationally recognized statistical rating agencies. If the legal entity’s financial strength were to fall below certain ratings, the counterparties to the derivative agreements could demand immediate and ongoing full collateralization and in certain instances demand immediate settlement of all outstanding derivative positions traded under each impacted bilateral agreement. The settlement amount is determined by netting the derivative positions transacted under each agreement. If the termination rights were to be exercised by the counterparties, it could impact the legal entity’s ability to conduct hedging activities by increasing the associated costs and decreasing the willingness of counterparties to transact with the legal entity. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that are in a net liability position as of June 30, 2011, is $275. Of this $275, the legal entities have posted collateral of $261 in the normal course of business. Based on derivative market values as of June 30, 2011, a downgrade of one level below the current financial strength ratings by either Moody’s or S&P could require approximately an additional $41 to be posted as collateral. Based on derivative market values as of June 30, 2011, a downgrade by either Moody’s or S&P of two levels below the legal entities’ current financial strength ratings would not require additional collateral to be posted beyond the $41 noted above. These collateral amounts could change as derivative market values change, as a result of changes in our hedging activities or to the extent changes in contractual terms are negotiated. The nature of the collateral that we would post, if required, would be primarily in the form of U.S. Treasury bills and U.S. Treasury notes.