Start now and shop for phoenix home life mutual insurance rates
and other phoenix home life mutual insurance quote information.

We're standing by now to assist you with the phoenix home life mutual insurance quotes you need to fulfill your phoenix home life mutual insurance needs. Feel free to use our service to compare phoenix home life mutual insurance pricing from multiple cariers.

Search results provided by EuroSeek.com:




Results from search: http://www.phl.com/

Phoenix Wealth Management

Results from search: http://www.ins.state.ny.us/audvid04.htm

Home About Us How to Contact Us Search News Latest Updates Publications Downloads Disciplinary Actions Employment Opportunities FOIL Links Phoenix Home Life Demutualization Hearing March 19, 2001 Superintendent of Insurance Neil D. Levin chaired a hearing on March 19, 2001 regarding Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company's plan to convert from a mutual life insurer to a stock life insurer. The hearing was held at 10 AM in NYC and Rensselaer. The public record will remain open until April 2, 2001 and written statements should be addressed to Ms. Ellen Wenz, New York State Insurance Department, Office of Public Affairs, 25 Beaver Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10004-2319. Copies of the reorganization plan are available on Phoenix's web site, www.phoenixwm.com . The New York State Insurance Department is providing access to the audio video recordings of this hearing.  Below are the speakers who participated: Note: In order to view this audio video presentation, you must have a soundcard, speakers, a 28.8K or better modem connection (56K recommended) and no firewall (or one that is configured to allow for Real Files). The Real Time Player software is available through the link below. Robert W. Fiondella : CEO, Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co. Dona D. Young : President & COO, Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co. Robert G. Lautensack, Jr. : Sr. VP, Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co. Duncan M. Briggs : Consulting Actuary, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin Douglas L. Brown : Investment Advisor, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Thomas Silvestri : Policyholder George Bulow : Policyholder Robert Zeckhauser : Potential Investor If you do not have Real Player ® installed, you will need to download and install the free Real Player ® in order to play these lectures on your computer.  Click on the icon on the left. DISCLAIMER

Results from search: http://www.ins.state.ny.us/news1.htm

News Home About Us How to Contact Us Search News Latest Updates Publications Downloads Disciplinary Actions Employment Opportunities FOIL Links News From here, you are able to view current and prior years' press releases. Recent Department Speeches are also now available on our site. If you are a reporter and would like more information, please call the Press Office at (212) 480-5262. Please, media inquiries only. Or, you may email us at: public-affairs@ins.state.ny.us If you are a member of the public wishing information, please visit either the Homepage of this Web site, or call the Department's toll-free Consumer Hotline at (800) 342-3736.   2002 News Releases Browse our latest News Releases Archived News Releases 2001 News Releases 2000 News Releases 1999 News Releases 1998 News Releases 1997 News Releases New York State Ethics Commission Awards Insurance Department with first Theodore Roosevelt Ethics Award Phoenix Demutualization Plan of Reorganization of Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company from a Mutual Life Insurance Company into a Stock Life Insurance Company Opinion and Decision on Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company's Demutualization (PDF Format)      Includes June 5, 2001 Letter to Ms. Dona D. Young concerning the Opinion and Decision Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company's Demutualization Hearing that the Department held on March 19, 2001 Privacy Hearing Privacy Hearing Addressing Proposed Regulation 169 that the Department held on September 6, 2000 MetLife Demutualization MetLife Demutualization Hearing that the Department held on January 24, 2000 MetLife Demutualization Opinion & Decision (PDF Format) Transcript of the Demutualization Hearing DISCLAIMER

Results from search: http://www.armstronglaing.com/content/aboutus/phoenix.asp

News - Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company - Armstrong Laing Home Predictive Planning Activity Analysis/Metify Services Events & Seminars About Us Other Languages Site Map Phoenix Selects Metify ABM to Help Understand Costs and Maximize Profitability ATLANTA (December 20, 1999) - Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company, one of the nation's largest mutual life insurers, has just completed a comprehensive evaluation of activity-based management software, selecting Metify ABM from Armstrong Laing Group for a company-wide cost management initiative. As a mutual life insurance company, Phoenix is owned by its policyholders, and operates primarily for their benefit. In the interests of potentially increasing the financial efficacy of the company for the benefit of its policyholders, Phoenix will use Metify ABM to help manage the costs of products and services, and to maximize profitability related to specific products, customers and channels. The cost management initiative will provide insight into activities performed on a regular basis, identify value-added and non value-added activities, and ultimately help the company transform that understanding into a process reengineering exercise. The project is set to begin in the IT organization, with a pilot to determine internal pricing for shared LAN services. Upon completion of the IT pilot, the company plans to use Metify to help them develop an accurate understanding of the costs of insurance products in the Life business. That information will be used to determine the profitability of various combinations of products, customers, and channels. "Being able to perform this kind of multi-dimensional analysis will be useful in our business planning initiative," said Phoenix second vice president Andre Jett. "This capability featured into our selection of Metify ABM." Jett also cited the software's ability to support multiple concurrent users and its Web-deployment capabilities as deciding factors, facilitating the planned company-wide implementation. In addition to costing and profitability, the company will take advantage of Metify process management features to refine and optimize their business processes. These features will enable Phoenix to rapidly model process scenarios to determine the effect of various alternatives, such as combining or eliminating tasks, moving work from one location or grade level to another, or replacing sequential processes with parallel processes. Metify will analyze the changes and show the effect on total process time and costs, providing the company with an automatic comparison of alternatives. "Phoenix is ahead of the game in undertaking this initiative. Clearly, they recognize the policyholder value inherent in developing a detailed understanding of their costs and profitability, and using this insight to fuel process improvement " said Tony Braniff, Armstrong Laing chief operating officer. "We are pleased to be able to partner with Phoenix in this endeavor." Phoenix provides insurance and investment management. Listed in the Fortune 500, it is the nation's ninth largest mutual life insurer and a leading money manager through its subsidiary, Phoenix Investment Partners, Ltd. Through its Phoenix Fiscal Fitness® Programs, the company offers a broad array of services to help clients achieve a lifetime of financial security. Phoenix's corporate offices are in Hartford, Conn. Founded in 1851, Phoenix is growing in a wide variety of insurance and investment businesses in the United States and internationally. More than 336 million people are covered by the company's insurance products. Contact | History | Customers | Press Room | Locations | Partners | Link To Us Please click here to request more information. © 2002 Armstrong Laing Group G400110  

Results from search: http://www.socialaw.com/appslip/98p1618.html

PHOENIX HOME LIFE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. vs. ESTHER R. BROWN, executrix,(1) & others.(2) Back Docket No.: 98-P-1618. Parties: PHOENIX HOME LIFE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. vs. ESTHER R. BROWN, executrix,(1) & others.(2) County: Suffolk. Dates: April 13, 2000. - July 12, 2000. Present: Kass, Porada, & Lenk, JJ Insurance, Life insurance, Life insurance: change of beneficiary, Settlement of claim, Unfair act or practice. Consumer Protection Act, Insurance, Unfair act or practice. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 16, 1995. Motions for summary judgment were heard by R. Malcolm Graham, J., and Herman J. Smith, Jr., J., and the case was tried before Thayer Fremont-Smith, J. Jeffrey L. Allen for the defendants. William Shields for the plaintiff. PORADA, J. The plaintiff brought a complaint for interpleader and declaratory relief in the Superior Court against the defendants to determine the proper beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the life of Kenneth R. Brown. The defendants filed a counterclaim containing three counts. The first and second counts sought a declaration directing the plaintiff to pay the proceeds to Esther R. Brown (Esther) as trustee of the Kenneth R. Brown Irrevocable Trust (trust) and the third count sought damages for a violation of G. L. c. 93A, based on alleged unfair settlement practices of the plaintiff. A Superior Court judge allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the first count of their counterclaim, directing the plaintiff to pay the proceeds to Esther as trustee. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the third count of their counterclaim. This motion was allowed by a second Superior Court judge who found that the plaintiff's insistence on a release from the defendants as a condition of payment of the life insurance proceeds to the trust constituted an unfair settlement practice in violation of G. L. c. 176D, § 3, and G. L. c. 93A. The defendants then filed a motion for entry of final judgment. The motion was denied on the ground that a hearing on the assessment of damages was required on the third count of the counterclaim, the violation of G. L. c. 93A. A third Superior Court judge conducted a trial on the issues of a wilful and knowing violation of G. L. c. 93A and damages. Upon the conclusion of the trial, and contrary to the motion judge's ruling, the trial judge determined that the plaintiff's insistence on a release as a condition of payment of the life insurance proceeds was not itself a violation of G. L. c. 93A. Instead, the judge ruled that the plaintiff's failure to pay the proceeds to the trust after the first Superior Court judge had directed the plaintiff to do so constituted an unfair settlement practice under G. L. c. 176D, § 3(9), and a wilful and knowing violation of G. L. c. 93A. The judge then ordered judgment to enter for the defendants in the amount of the policy plus double the amount of statutory interest of twelve percent on that amount, calculated from August 14, 1995, the date on which summary judgment was allowed on the first count of the counterclaim. Both parties have appealed. The plaintiff insurance company's primary contention is that its request for a release as a condition of payment of the proceeds to the trust and its failure to pay the proceeds to the trust after being directed to do so by a Superior Court judge were lawful, and did not constitute a violation of G. L. c. 93A. The defendants, as counterclaimants, make two principal arguments: (1) that the judge erred in his calculation of punitive damages and award of attorneys' fees; and (2) that the judge erred in ruling that the plaintiff did not commit a violation of G. L. c. 93A in demanding a release from the defendants as a condition of payment of the policy proceeds to the trust. We summarize the facts. On or about August 15, 1980, the plaintiff issued a life insurance policy to Edel-Brown Tool & Die Co., Inc. (Edel-Brown), on the life of Kenneth R. Brown (Kenneth). On June 2, 1983, Edel-Brown transferred ownership of the policy to the KHE Corporation (KHE), of which Kenneth was a principal stockholder and corporate officer. On April 15, 1993, Kenneth executed a form entitled "Change of Owner/Account & Beneficiary to a Trust" naming Esther, as trustee, as the beneficiary of this policy. The beneficiary's taxpayer identification number identified on the form was the number belonging to the trust. However, the policy required any change of ownership or designation of beneficiary to be made by the owner of the policy, which on April 15, 1993, was KHE, not Kenneth. On April 23, 1993, KHE, through its president, executed an assignment of the policy to Kenneth. The assignment of ownership to Kenneth was mailed to the plaintiff by KHE's insurance agent on May 8, 1993. On May 17, 1993, the plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the same and sent a memo to the insurance agent advising the agent that, if Kenneth wished to designate a beneficiary other than his estate, he should execute the form which was enclosed. On August 5, 1993, Kenneth died. The plaintiff never received a change of beneficiary form from Kenneth after Kenneth had become the owner of the policy on April 23, 1993. On August 16, 1993, Esther, as trustee of the trust, filed a claim for payment of the life insurance proceeds to the trust. On September 1, 1993, the plaintiff advised the defendants' insurance agent that the plaintiff would have to pay the proceeds to Kenneth's estate because, according to the plaintiff's records, the designation of the trust as the beneficiary of the policy had not been made by an owner of the policy, and that if the estate wished the trust to receive the proceeds, then the plaintiff would require a release and indemnification agreement to be signed by the parties involved. On October 14, 1993, the defendants' lawyer advised the plaintiff that, due to some probate concerns, it would not be acceptable that the proceeds be paid to the estate, and that Esther, as the executrix of the estate, would sign the necessary paperwork to obtain payment. On November 18, 1993, the plaintiff sent a release and indemnity agreement to be signed by the defendants in exchange for payment of the proceeds to the trust. The plaintiff did not hear from the defendants again until July, 1994. In September, 1994, the defendants' attorney advised the plaintiff's agent that the State Street Bank and Trust Company, a co-trustee of the trust, would not sign the release because the bank, along with Esther, was the trustee not only of this trust but also of another trust known as the Kenneth R. Brown 1989 Trust in which there was a difference in the degree of interest of the beneficiaries, and the execution of the release might well be construed as an admission that the trust was not entitled to the proceeds. The plaintiff and defendants continued to negotiate to resolve the dispute. The plaintiff suggested that the executrix seek approval from the Probate Court to pay the proceeds to the trust and offered to pay the expenses of this procedure. This suggestion was rejected by the defendants because the executrix was of the opinion that the public nature of a probate proceeding might have an adverse effect on her negotiations with third parties for the acquisition of her late husband's interest in KHE. Unable to negotiate a settlement, the plaintiff then filed this interpleader action in the Superior Court. While the defendants' motion for summary judgment under the first count of their counterclaim was pending in the Superior Court, the plaintiff and the defendants executed an escrow agreement under which the plaintiff agreed to pay the face amount of the policy and accrued interest to an escrow agent,(3) who was to hold the same in an interest bearing account until such time as the court determined who was entitled to the proceeds or until the plaintiff and defendants agreed on who should be paid the proceeds. On or about August 25, 1995, the plaintiff forwarded a check in the sum of $274,331.99 to the escrow agent. This sum included accrued interest under the terms of the policy from the date of Kenneth's death to August 25, 1995. At the date of the scheduled hearing on the assessment of damages, this sum apparently had not been paid by the escrow agent to the trust. The dispositive issue in this case is whether the plaintiff's conduct in the handling of the trust's claim for payment of the life insurance proceeds constituted an unfair settlement practice under G. L. c. 176D, § 3(9), and, thus, a violation of G. L. c. 93A. The defendants argue that the insistence on a release as a condition of payment of the proceeds to the trust constituted an unfair settlement practice under G. L. c. 176D, § 3(9)(f),(4) because it was clear that the policy holder, Kenneth, had substantially complied with the policy requirements in naming the trust as his beneficiary, and payment of the policy proceeds to the trust would not have exposed the plaintiff to any liability. The defendants argue also that the trial judge's failure to abide by the motion judge's ruling to this effect was not only an abuse of discretion but also an error of law. Although there is no duty to reconsider an issue or a question of fact or law, once decided, the power to do so remains in the court until final judgment. See Peterson v. Hopson, 306 Mass. 597, 601 (1940); Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 425 Mass. 1, 14, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1015 (1997). Here, the judge's decision was based on a two-day trial involving the subject matter of the prior motion for summary judgment. In light thereof, there is no basis for ruling that the judge abused his discretion in reaching a decision different from that of the motion judge. The judge was correct in concluding that the plaintiff had engaged in neither an unfair nor a deceptive act or practice in insisting on a release from the defendants before payment to the trust. Kenneth, after he had become the owner of the policy, had not informed the plaintiff of his desire to name the trust as his beneficiary. Implicit in the trial judge's findings is the judge's determination that the plaintiff had a reasonable and good faith belief that it could not lawfully make payment to the trust under the terms of its policy and the judge's recognition that the plaintiff had taken active steps to resolve the dispute. In these circumstances, even if we were to assume, without so deciding, that the plaintiff wrongly determined that it could not legally pay the trust under the terms of its policy without exposing itself to liability to claims by third parties, the plaintiff's conduct would not have amounted to an unfair settlement practice or a violation of G. L. c. 93A. See Premier Ins. Co. of Mass. v. Furtado, 428 Mass. 507, 510 (1998) ("If an insurance company has a reasonable and good faith belief that it is not obliged to make a payment to a claimant who is asserting a violation of G. L. c. 93A and G. L. c. 176D, § 3(9), asserts the point, and offers to take active steps to resolve the dispute, the company's action, even if ultimately held to be based on a misinterpretation of the law, would not be an unfair settlement practice"); Guity v. Commerce Ins. Co., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 339, 344 (1994) (absence of good faith on part of insurer and presence of extortionate tactics generally characterize action based on unfair settlement practice). We also decide that the trial judge erred in concluding that the plaintiff had violated G. L. c. 93A in failing to make payment to the trust once the first Superior Court judge entered summary judgment for the defendants under the first count.(5) The judge ignored uncontroverted evidence before him that, after the commencement of this action and before summary judgment entered, the plaintiff had entered into an escrow agreement with the defendants, in which the plaintiff had agreed to deposit the policy proceeds with an escrow agent, the defendants' attorney, and did so within fourteen days after the entry of summary judgment under the first count. The escrow agreement provided that the escrow agent was to hold the proceeds until "the Court makes a determination as to who is entitled to be paid the Benefit under the Policy, or [the plaintiff and defendants] agree who is to be paid the Benefit." Accordingly, the escrow agent was free to distribute the proceeds to the defendants if he chose to do so without the consent of the plaintiff. There was no evidence that the escrow agent had done so or had requested the plaintiff's consent to do so once summary judgment entered under the first count. In these circumstances, particularly where the entry of summary judgment under the first count was not a final judgment, the judge's conclusion that the plaintiff had committed an unfair settlement practice and a violation of G. L. c. 93A in failing to pay the proceeds once summary judgment entered was clearly erroneous. See Premier Ins. Co. of Mass. v. Furtado, 428 Mass. at 510 (insurance company did not commit an unfair settlement practice when it commenced an action to obtain a determination of the disputed issue and placed the disputed proceeds in an interest bearing bank account while the action was pending). In light of our conclusion that the defendants cannot recover for a violation of G. L. c. 93A, we need not discuss the award of damages or attorneys' fees made by the judge. In sum, the judgment is vacated. A judgment shall be entered declaring that the trust is the beneficiary of the policy issued by the plaintiff(6) and that all funds in the escrow account into which the amount of the policy and accrued interest were placed by the plaintiff shall be paid to the trust. All other claims are dismissed. So ordered. Footnotes (1) Of the estate of Kenneth R. Brown. (2) Esther R. Brown and State Street Bank and Trust Company as co-trustees of the Kenneth R. Brown Irrevocable Trust. (3) The escrow agent was also the defendant's trial and appellate counsel. (4) Section 3(9)(f) lists "[f]ailing to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear" as an unfair settlement practice. (5) The plaintiff also asserts that, in reaching this conclusion, the trial judge erred in advancing a theory of recovery that neither plaintiff nor defendants advanced in their pleadings or litigated by consent at trial. See Harrington-McGill v. Old Mother Hubbard Dog Food Co., 22 Mass. App. Ct. 966, 968 (1986) ("Unless a theory of recovery is disclosed in the pleadings or is tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, a court may not base its decision thereon"). We need not address this issue in light of our conclusion that the judge's determination that the plaintiff had committed an unfair settlement practice was clearly erroneous. (6) The parties did not challenge that portion of the judgment declaring the trust as the beneficiary of the policy. * SLL Home * Copyright © 1999, Proprietors of the Social Law Library. All Rights Reserved.

Results from search: http://www.nyse.com/events/NT0003FA5E.html

Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance lists IPO Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance lists IPO 06/20/2001 Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co. (NYSE-Listed PNX) celebrates its initial public offering on the NYSE. In honor of the IPO, Robert W. Fiondella, Chairman & CEO, rings the Opening Bell SM . After the close of the IPO, the publicly traded holding company will be named The Phoenix Companies, Inc. Phoenix is a premier provider of wealth management products and services, distributed through a diverse group of experienced advisors and institutions to serve the accumulation, preservation and transfer needs of the high-net-worth and affluent market. Phoenix, with corporate offices in Hartford, Conn., and its statutory home office in East Greenbush, N.Y., was founded in 1851.   Link to related URL : http://www.phoenixwm.com

Results from search: http://www.bliss-resources.com/homeowners_insurance_quotes.htm

Free & Instant Home Insurance Quotes      Homeowners Insurance Quotes      Comparing home insurance quotes has never been so quick and easy. By using the below companies (Nationwide Insurance & Net Quote) you can now compare thousands of different home insurance quotes for free in a instant! Once you complete a secure quick online application  your home insurance information and requirements will be submitted securely to thousands of auto insurance companies across the U.S. instantly! Net Quote and Nationwide then automatically gather the best insurance quotes and e-mail the insurance quotes to you or display the quotes in your browser. To receive your free auto insurance quotes simply click on the desired banner in the right column. Auto Insurance Quotes  . Health Insurance Quotes . Life Insurance Quote   Bliss Resources Consumer Shopping &  News Credit Card Deals . Secured Credit Cards . Visa Credit Cards . Unsecured Credit Cards . Student Credit Cards . U.K. Credit Cards . Free Credit Reports . Debt Reduction . Capital One Insurance . Auto Insurance Quotes . Health Insurance Quotes . Home Insurance Quotes . Life Insurance Quote Online Loans . Auto Loans . Home Loans . Personal Loans . Payday Loans Money Transfers Telecommunications . Calling Cards . Long Distance Services . Add URL Insurance Sites . Auto Insurance quotes . Life Insurance Quote . Health Insurance Quotes . Car Insurance Quotes . Home Insurance Quotes . Disability Insurance . Health Insurance . Renters Insurance . Medical insurance . Home Insurance . Life Insurance    . Long Term Care   . Auto Insurance quotes     Net Quotes Home Insurance   Since 1989, Net Quotes free service has been working closely with Brokers, Captive Agents, and Direct Writers to help identify those consumers they can offer the best rates. Net Quote matches you to companies with the best rates based on your home insurance needs.  Receive homeowners insurance quotes only from the most competitive companies. You can expect to receive between 3 to 6 home owners insurance quotes, usually within 3 hours. The selected home insurance companies process your request and either FAX, Phone, or Email your quote Nationwide Homeowners Insurance Quotes Nationwide Insurance provides a FREE consumer referral service. Nationwide Insurance  has been helping people find the most competitive insurance rates available Since 1993.   Complete one quick easy online quote form and your information will go through a network of thousands of participating homeowners insurance agents and companies across the United States. Nationwide Insurance instantly matches your profile to the best five homeowners insurance companies for you. Receive most of your quotes within minutes!  

Results from search: http://www.cbs.state.or.us/external/ins/docs/sb21/foreign/phoenix_hlife/phoenix_hlife.htm

Oregon Insurance Division - Reports Received from Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company Welcome | Site Search | What's New Insurance Division About the Division Advisory Committees Agent Information Public Meetings Company Information Consumer Complaints Consumer Information Division Directory Employment      Opportunities Enforcement Actions F.A.Q. Fees Forms In the News Laws, Rules & Bulletins Legislation Links to Other Sites Publications Rates and Forms Senior Health Insurance      Benefits Assistance Subject Index Reports Received from Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company In 1997, the Legislature adopted the Oregon "Patient Protection Act" (SB 21), which established broad new consumer protections in the areas of disclosures to consumers, grievance procedures, emergency room claims, and prior authorizations. The bill, which took effect on January 1, 1998, also requires annual insurer reporting. Note: Insurance companies can submit the annual report in any format. A company may or may not have summary reports in each category. Notations have been made where a company has not submitted required reports. Reports require Adobe Acrobat© Reader , available free. Grievance Report : Summary and types of consumer complaints. Utilization Review : Summary of procedures used to monitor levels of care. Managed Health Care Insurance Companies Quality Assessment: Summary of quality improvement goals and measurements designed to provide better care and service to you. Accreditation Reports: Reports from NCQA and other experts monitoring quality of services. HCFA (Medicare): The Federal audits on insurance companies Medicare business. Health Promotion & Disease Prevention: Overview of Insurance company's policy and procedures designed to prevent diseases and improve the overall health of members. HEDIS: NCQA data measuring quality of services. Scope of Network: A description of how the insurance company monitors their contracted network of providers to ensure that you have reasonable access to services. Review another company Return to Top DCBS Home Page | DCBS Site Search | Oregon.gov | Disclaimer of Liability We'd like to hear from you. Send comments, questions or suggestions to Oregon Insurance Division or call (503) 947-7980 This document was last revised on December 26, 2000 .

Results from search: http://www.moderncontinental.com/benefits.htm

Modern Continental Companies: Employment Opportunities   MCC Company offers a comprehensive program of employee benefits designed to protect you and your dependents against financial and medical uncertainties that may result from illness or injuries. Eligible employees may participate in the insurance programs after a 60 day waiting period. The following benefits are totally company paid:   Medical Insurance Dental Insurance Life Insurance Vacation Accidental Death & Dismemberment Short Term Disability Long Term Disability Holidays   Medical Insurance Through Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The Company provides HMO Blue of New England individual and family coverage at no cost to the employee.   Dental Insurance Thru Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The Company provides coverage for both individual and family coverage at no cost to the employee.   Life Insurance Thru Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co. The Company provides $100,000 in Life Insurance.   Vacation Salaried Full-Time employees will accrue vacation time based upon years of service. Time is accrued on a calendar year basis. Year of Service Accrual/Formula Annual Accrual Less than 1 year ,833 Days/Month Depends on month of hire 1 thru 5 .833 Days/Month 10 Days After completion of 5th calendar year 1.25 Days/Month 15 Days   Accidental Death & Dismemberment The Company provides $100,000 in Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance.   Short Term Disability Insurance The STD program which is administered thru the Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co., provides income equal to 50 percent of base salary after a 15 day waiting period for up to 13 weeks.   Long Term Disability Insurance The LTD program which is administered thru the Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co., provides employees a source of income in the event of disability, injury or illness of over 90 consecutive calendar days duration. The plan provides for income equal to 66-2/3% of base salary to a maximum of $9,000.00 per month. Thrift (401k) Plan Full time employees with 90 days of service may save a percentage of base pay (between 1 percent and 15 percent) up to the annual IRS limit. All contributions are made on a ("Before Tax") basis and interest and earnings accrue on a tax deferred basis. The funds are managed by the New England Mutual Life Insurance Co.   Project Incentive Plan Full time employees are eligible to participate in the Company's project incentive program. Based on exceeding planned project profit targets, a percent of these profits are distributed to employees on a discretionary basis. The timing of distributions is dependent solely on the successful "close out" of projects as defined by the Company.   Profit Sharing Plan Based on Annual Profit, an amount may be allocated to plan participants. Full time employees who have completed a minimum of 18 months of service on July 1st are eligible and employees are 100 percent vested after 5 years of service.   Tuition Reimbursement Plan Full time employees with 1 year of service are eligible to participate in the Tuition Reimbursement Plan. The Company reimburses 80 percent of the tuition costs for approved courses or programs taught at accredited Colleges or Universities.   Holidays The company observes the following schedule of Holidays (below listed for 2001). Saturday Holidays are not observed: Presidents' Day Patriots Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas New Year's Day   Construction  |  Residential Development Commercial Development  |  Marine Services Property Management  |  Architectural Services Companies  |  About Us  |  Contact Press Releases  |  Site Map       © 2000 Modern Continental Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.

Results from search: http://www.llgm.com/hot.asp?matter=17

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.    HOT NEW MATTERS: . Albany . Almaty . Beijing . Bishkek . Boston . Brussels . Denver . Harrisburg . Hartford . Houston . Jacksonville . Johannesburg . London . Los Angeles . Moscow . New York . Newark . Paris . Pittsburgh . Riyadh . Salt Lake City . San Francisco . Tashkent . Washington, D.C. . Bankruptcy & Restructuring . Corporate . Energy . Environmental, Health & Safety . Executive Compensation, Employee Benefits and ERISA . iBusiness/Emerging Companies . Insurance . Intellectual Property . International . Investment Management . Litigation . Real Estate . Reinsurance . Tax . Telecommunications . Trusts and Estates printable version LEBOEUF COUNSELS UNDERWRITERS IN $854 MILLION IPO (June 25, 2001, Hartford, Connecticut) -- The Phoenix Companies, Inc. announced today that its initial public offering of 48.8 million shares of common stock has closed and the demutualization of Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company has become effective. The IPO was priced at $17.50 per share on June 19. The closing price on Monday, June 25, was $17.85 per share. Phoenix's stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol PNX. In addition to the shares sold in the public offering, an estimated 56.2 million shares of Phoenix common stock will be distributed to approximately 500,000 eligible policyholders of Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company, as outlined under the company's demutualization plan. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company has been renamed Phoenix Life Insurance Company and it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a new publicly traded holding company, The Phoenix Companies, Inc. At the same time, Phoenix Investment Partners also became a wholly owned subsidiary of The Phoenix Companies, Inc. The co-lead managers for the offering were Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Merrill Lynch & Co.  A.G. Edwards and Sons, Inc., Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown and UBS Warburg were co-managers. Phoenix announced in April 2000 it would pursue a plan of demutualization. Phoenix's Board of Directors approved the plan in December 2000. The plan was approved by policyholders in April of 2001 and by the New York State Superintendent of Insurance earlier this month. This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be a sale of these securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration of qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction. Phoenix is a premier provider of wealth management products and services, distributed through a diverse group of experienced advisors and institutions to serve the accumulation, preservation and transfer needs of the high-net-worth and affluent market. Phoenix, with corporate offices in Hartford, Conn., and its statutory home office in East Greenbush, N.Y., was founded in 1851. LeBoeuf represented the underwriters in this offering. * * * LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P. has more than 750 lawyers practicing in 14 U.S. offices and in 10 countries overseas. Well known as one of the preeminent legal services providers to the insurance/financial services and energy & utilities industries, the Firm has built upon these strengths to gain prominence in corporate, international, taxation, environmental, bankruptcy, iBusiness/intellectual property and litigation practice. Founded in 1929, the Firm is headquartered in New York City.

If you would like your website removed from
our search result posting, please click here.

Links