LITIGATION	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 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 United States District Court of the District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds Management Group, LLC (“AXA Equitable FMG”) (“Sivolella Litigation”). The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds. The lawsuit seeks recovery under 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 FMG for investment management services. In November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the Investment Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. In addition, plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class action in addition to a derivative action. In the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments, rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees paid, interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses and reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable. In December 2011, AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim under Section 26(f) seeking restitution and rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940 Act. In September 2012, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as it related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the defendants’ motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim. In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et al. v. AXA Equitable FMG (“Sanford Litigation”). The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds, four of which are named in the Sivolella lawsuit as well as four new funds, and seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable FMG for investment management services. In light of the similarities of the allegations in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations, the parties and the Court agreed to consolidate the two lawsuits. In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations amended the complaints to add additional claims under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for recovery of alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable FMG in its capacity as administrator of EQ Advisors Trust. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of the alleged overpayments, or alternatively, rescission of the contract and restitution of the excessive fees paid, interest, costs and fees. In January 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as well as various motions to strike certain of the Plaintiffs’ experts in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations. Also in January 2015, two Plaintiffs in the Sanford Litigation filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to the EQ/Core Bond Index Portfolio as well as motions in limine to bar admission of certain documents and preclude the testimony of one of defendants’ experts. In August 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions in limine and also denied both parties motions for summary judgment. The non-jury trial commenced in January 2016 and testimony concluded in February 2016. Closing arguments occurred in June 2016 following post-trial briefing. 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) or show any actual damages. In September 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the trial opinion and to amend or make new findings of fact and/or conclusions of law. AXA Equitable’s and AXA Equitable FMG’s response to this motion was filed in October 2016. In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Andrew Yale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life Insurance Company F/K/A 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 June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in October 2014. In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs and the action is now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In April 2015, the same plaintiffs’ law firm filed a second action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 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 (return of all premium paid by class members) as the first action on behalf of life insurance policyholders. In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough litigation on similar grounds as Ross. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the Ross and Yarbrough appeals. In December 2015, the Second Circuit denied the motion to consolidate but ordered that the appeals be heard together before a single panel of judges. Briefing on the appeals was complete as of September 2016. 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 March 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 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

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 United States District Court of the District of New Jersey in July 2011, entitled Mary Ann Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds Management Group, LLC (“AXA Equitable FMG”) (“Sivolella Litigation”). The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds. The lawsuit seeks recovery under 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 FMG for investment management services. In November 2011, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims under Sections 47(b) and 26(f) of the Investment Company Act, as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. In addition, plaintiff purports to file the lawsuit as a class action in addition to a derivative action. In the amended complaint, plaintiff seeks recovery of the alleged overpayments, rescission of the contracts, restitution of all fees paid, interest, costs, attorney fees, fees for expert witnesses and reserves the right to seek punitive damages where applicable. In December 2011, AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claim under Section 26(f) seeking restitution and rescission under Section 47(b) of the 1940 Act. In September 2012, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as it related to the Section 36(b) claim and granted the defendants’ motion as it related to the unjust enrichment claim.

In January 2013, a second lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey entitled Sanford et al. v. AXA Equitable FMG (“Sanford Litigation”). The lawsuit was filed derivatively on behalf of eight funds, four of which are named in the Sivolella lawsuit as well as four new funds, and seeks recovery under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable FMG for investment management services. In light of the similarities of the allegations in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations, the parties and the Court agreed to consolidate the two lawsuits.

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations amended the complaints to add additional claims under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act for recovery of alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable FMG in its capacity as administrator of EQ Advisors Trust. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of the alleged overpayments, or alternatively, rescission of the contract and restitution of the excessive fees paid, interest, costs and fees. In January 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as well as various motions to strike certain of the Plaintiffs’ experts in the Sivolella and Sanford Litigations. Also in January 2015, two Plaintiffs in the Sanford Litigation filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to the EQ/Core Bond Index Portfolio as well as motions in limine to bar admission of certain documents and preclude the testimony of one of defendants’ experts. In August 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motions in limine and also denied both parties motions for summary judgment. The non-jury trial commenced in January 2016 and testimony concluded in February 2016. Closing arguments occurred in June 2016 following post-trial briefing. 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) or show any actual damages. In September 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the trial opinion and to amend or make new findings of fact and/or conclusions of law. AXA Equitable’s and AXA Equitable FMG’s response to this motion was filed in October 2016.

In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Andrew Yale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life Insurance Company F/K/A 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 June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in October 2014. In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs and the action is now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

In April 2015, the same plaintiffs’ law firm filed a second action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 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 (return of all premium paid by class members) as the first action on behalf of life insurance policyholders. In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough litigation on similar grounds as Ross. In October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

In November 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the Ross and Yarbrough appeals. In December 2015, the Second Circuit denied the motion to consolidate but ordered that the appeals be heard together before a single panel of judges. Briefing on the appeals was complete as of September 2016.

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 March 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 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.