LITIGATION	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Litigation Settlement [Abstract]
Litigation	LITIGATION There have been no new material legal proceedings and no material developments in the specific litigations or regulatory matters previously reported in the Company’s Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2015, except as set forth below: Insurance Litigation A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, Commercial Division (“New York state court”) in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of “all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof.” Plaintiff asserts that AXA Equitable breached the variable annuity contracts by implementing the volatility management tool. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In September 2015, the New York federal district court granted AXA Equitable’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In February 2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her appeal. In November 2014, one of the plaintiff’s law firms in Zweiman filed a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County (“New Jersey state court”). 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’s Separate Accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof” and asserts a claim for breach of contract similar to the claim in Zweiman. In February 2016, the New Jersey State Court dismissed the Complaint. In April 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In August 2015, another of the plaintiff’s law firms in Zweiman filed a third lawsuit entitled Richard T. O’Donnell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven (“Connecticut state court”). This lawsuit purports to cover the same class definition, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as in Zweiman. In November 2015, the Connecticut federal district court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. _______________________________________________________________________________ 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 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

There have been no new material legal proceedings and no material developments in the specific litigations or regulatory matters previously reported in the Company’s Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2015, except as set forth below:

Insurance Litigation

A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, Commercial Division (“New York state court”) in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of “all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof.” Plaintiff asserts that AXA Equitable breached the variable annuity contracts by implementing the volatility management tool. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages. In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In September 2015, the New York federal district court granted AXA Equitable’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In February 2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her appeal.

In November 2014, one of the plaintiff’s law firms in Zweiman filed a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County (“New Jersey state court”). 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’s Separate Accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof” and asserts a claim for breach of contract similar to the claim in Zweiman. In February 2016, the New Jersey State Court dismissed the Complaint. In April 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In August 2015, another of the plaintiff’s law firms in Zweiman filed a third lawsuit entitled Richard T. O’Donnell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven (“Connecticut state court”). This lawsuit purports to cover the same class definition, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as in Zweiman. In November 2015, the Connecticut federal district court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

_______________________________________________________________________________

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 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.