Tag Archives: private disability insurance claim denial

Comitz | Beethe Attorney Ed Comitz Posts CE Course on Dentaltown

Ed Comitz’s Continuing Education course “Disability Insurance Roulette: Why is it So Hard to Collect on My Policy” is now available through Dentaltown.  This CE is an electronically delivered, self-instructional program and is designated for 2 hours of CE credit.  In this course, Ed discusses why it is so difficult for dentists to collect disability benefits and how to avoid the most common mistakes made by dentists when filing disability claims.  Ed also covers the key provisions to look for in disability insurance policies and provides an overview of the disability claims process.  Finally, the course discusses how disability insurance claims are investigated and administered, and identifies common strategies used by insurance companies to deny claims.

Information on how to register can be found here

 

For more information regarding what to look for in a policy, see this podcast interview where Ed Comitz discusses the importance of disability insurance with Dentaltown’s Howard Farran.

Share

Can Your Disability Insurance Company Dictate The Medical Treatment You Must Receive To Collect Benefits? Part 2

“Regular Care”

If you are a doctor or dentist and you bought your individual disability insurance policy in the 1980s or 1990s, the medical care provision in your policy likely contains some variation of the following language:

Physician’s Care means you are under the regular care and attendance of a physician.”

This type of care provision is probably the least stringent of all the care provisions.  If your policy contains a “regular care” provision, courts have determined that you are under no obligation to minimize or mitigate your disability by undergoing medical treatment.[1]  In other words, you cannot be penalized for refusing to undergo surgery or other procedures—even if the procedure in question is minimally invasive and usually successful.[2]

Let’s look at an actual case involving a “regular care” provision.  In Heller v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, Dr. Stanley Heller was an invasive cardiologist suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome who declined to undergo corrective surgery on his left hand.  Equitable Life refused to pay his disability benefits, insisting that the surgery was routine, low risk, and required by the “regular care” provision of Dr. Heller’s policy.  The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed, and determined that the “regular care” provision did not grant Equitable Life the right to scrutinize or direct Dr. Heller’s treatment.  To the contrary, the Court held that “regular care” simply meant that Dr. Heller’s health must be monitored by a treatment provider on a regular basis.[3]

Unfortunately, the Heller case didn’t stop insurance companies from looking for other ways to control policyholders’ care and threaten denial of benefits.  For instance, some disability insurance providers argued that provisions requiring policyholders to “cooperate” with their insurer grants them the right to request that a policyholder undergo surgery.  Remarkably, when insurers employ these tactics, they are interpreting the policy language in the broadest manner possible–even though they know that the laws in virtually every state require that insurance policies be construed narrowly against the insurer.

Why would insurance companies make these sorts of claims when it is likely that they would ultimately lose in court?  Because insurance companies also know that even if their position is wrong, most insureds who are disabled and/or prohibited from working under their disability policy cannot handle the strain and burden of protracted litigation.  They know that if they threaten to deny or terminate benefits, many insureds will seriously consider having surgery—if only to avoid the stress and expense of a lawsuit.  Unfortunately, this can lead to insureds submitting to unwanted medical procedures, despite having no legal obligation to do so.

As time went on, and more and more courts began to hold that “regular care” simply meant that the insured must regularly visit his or her doctor, Unum, Great West, Guardian, and other insurers stopped issuing policies containing that language.  Instead, insurers started to insert “appropriate care” standards into policies.  In the next post, we will discuss this heightened standard and how insurers predictably used it as a vehicle to challenge the judgment of policyholders’ doctors, in a renewed effort to dictate their policyholders’ medical care.

[1] Casson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 361, 366-77 (Del. Super. 1982)

[2] North American Acc. Ins. Co. v. Henderson, 170 So. 528, 529-30 (Miss. 1937)

[3] Heller v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 833 F.2d 1253 (7th Cir. 1987)

Share

Can Your Disability Insurance Company Dictate The Medical Treatment You Must Receive To Collect Benefits? Part 1

Imagine that you are a dentist suffering from cervical degenerative disc disease.  You can no longer perform clinical work without experiencing excruciating pain.  You have been going to physical therapy and taking muscle relaxers prescribed by your primary care doctor, and you feel that these conservative treatments are helping.  Like most dentists, you probably have an “own occupation” disability insurance policy.  You are certain that if you file your disability claim, your insurer will approve your claim and pay you the benefits you need to replace your lost income and cover the costs of the medical treatment that has provided you with relief from your pain and improved your quality of life.

You file your claim, submit the forms and paperwork requested by the insurer, and wait for a response.  To your dismay, your insurer informs you that its in-house physician has determined that the treatment prescribed by your doctor was inadequate.  Your insurer then tells you that you should have been receiving steroid injections into your cervical spine, and tells you that if you do not submit to this unwanted, invasive medical procedure, your claim could be denied under the “medical care” provision in your policy.

You were not aware that such a provision existed, but, sure enough, when you review your policy more carefully, you realize that there is a provision requiring you to receive “appropriate medical care” in order to collect disability benefits.  You think that your insurer is going too far by dictating what procedures you should or should not be receiving, but you are afraid that if you don’t comply with their demands, you will lose your disability benefits, which you desperately need.

This is precisely the sort of scenario presented to Richard Van Gemert, an oral surgeon who lost the vision in his left eye due to a cataract and chronic inflammation.  Dr. Van Gemert’s disability insurance policies required that he receive care by a physician which is “appropriate for the condition causing the disability.”  After years of resisting pressure from his insurers to undergo surgery, Dr. Van Gemert finally capitulated.  Once Dr. Van Gemert received the surgery, you might expect that his insurer would pay his claim without further complaint.  Instead, Dr. Van Gemert’s insurer promptly sued him to recover the years of benefits it had paid to him since it first asserted that he was required to undergo the surgery.[1]

Unfortunately, “appropriate care” provisions, like the provision in Dr. Van Gemert’s policy, are becoming more and more common.  The language in such provisions has also evolved over time, and not for the better.  In the 1980s and 1990s, the simple “regular care” standard was commonplace.  In the late 1990s and into the 2000s, insurers began using the more restrictive “appropriate care” standard.  And, if you were to purchase a policy today, you would find that many contain a very stringent “most appropriate care” standard.

These increasingly onerous standards have been carefully crafted to provide insurers with more leverage to dictate policyholders’ medical care. However, there are several reasons why your insurance company should not be the one making your medical decisions.  To begin, if you undergo a surgical procedure, it is you—and not the insurance company—who is bearing both the physical risk and the financial cost of the procedure.  Perhaps you have co-morbid conditions that would make an otherwise safe and routine surgical procedure extremely risky.  Perhaps there are multiple treatment options that are reasonable under the circumstances.  Perhaps you believe conservative treatment provides better relief for your condition than surgery would.  These are decisions that you have a right to make about your own body, regardless of what your insurer may be telling you.

In the remaining posts in this series, we will be looking at the different types of care provisions in more detail, and how far insurance companies can go in dictating your care in exchange for the payment of your disability benefits.  We will also provide you with useful information that you can use when choosing a policy or reviewing the policy you have in place. In the next post we will be discussing the “regular care” standard found in most policies issued in the 1980s and early 1990s.

[1] See Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. v. Van Gemert, 262 F.Supp.2d 1047 (2003)

Share

Thinking About a Policy Buyout? How Lump Sum Settlements Work: Part 2

In this two-part series we are addressing the two most common scenarios in which insurance companies pursue lump sum buyouts.  In Part 1, we talked about buyouts for individuals who are totally and permanently disabled and have been on claim for several years.  In Part 2, we will address the other scenario in which buyouts occur: after a lawsuit has been filed.

In the context of an individual disability insurance policy, a lawsuit is generally filed in one of two common scenarios: (1) a person on claim with a legitimate disability has their benefits terminated; or, (2) a person with a legitimate disability has their claim denied.  A lawsuit is typically considered to be the last line of defense in the claims process.  By the time a lawsuit has been filed, the claimant’s attorney has likely exhausted every available means to resolve the claim without legal action.  Litigation is costly, time-consuming, and can drag on for years.

If an insurance company offers a lump sum buyout during litigation, it will typically be at one of three stages in the case: (1) after the Complaint and Answer are filed; (2) after all stages of pretrial litigation and discovery are complete; or (3) after the claimant/plaintiff wins at trial.

The first stage of any lawsuit is the filing of the Complaint.  This is a document the plaintiff files with the court outlining all of the claims and allegations against the defendant.  After receiving a copy of the Complaint, the defendant then has a specified period of time in which to file an Answer responding to the plaintiff’s allegations.

Prior to the filing of a lawsuit, a contested claim has likely been reviewed only by the insurance company’s in-house attorneys.  However, once litigation begins, the insurance company will retain a law firm experienced in insurance litigation to handle the case.  After the filing of the Complaint, the insurance company’s outside counsel will have the opportunity to evaluate the strength of the case and the claim.  Viewing the case through the prism of their experience, the insurer’s litigation team may recommend offering a buyout to avoid the risk, costs, and time associated with the lawsuit.

The second point of a lawsuit at which a buyout may occur is after all stages of pretrial litigation are complete.  Once the parties have had the opportunity to conduct discovery and litigate any pretrial motions, they will have a full picture of the case and their prospects at trial.  Through discovery both sides will be able to obtain all documents and interview all witnesses the other side intends to use at trial.  Through the filing of pretrial motions the parties can attempt to prevent or limit the use of certain evidence or witnesses at trial.

At this juncture, the insurance company may seek to avoid the risks of trial and settle the claim before the first juror is ever impaneled.  The insurance company’s incentive to resolve the case at this point – even after both sides have invested substantial resources in the litigation – is the financial exposure and bad publicity it faces with a loss at trial.  Additionally, a bad result at trial for the insurance company could create undesirable legal precedent for future cases.

If a jury (or a judge, depending on the case) determines that the insurance company has unlawfully denied or terminated a legitimate disability claim, the insurer will not only be required to pay the benefits the claimant/plaintiff is entitled to, but may also be liable for damages and other costs.  The insurer may be required to pay back benefits, plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, consequential damages, and punitive damages.

In the context of a disability insurance lawsuit, consequential damages come in the form of any financial harm to the claimant/plaintiff resulting from the insurer’s denial or termination of benefits.  For example, if the insurer’s termination of benefits led to the claimant/plaintiff losing their house in foreclosure, the insurer could be liable for consequential damages.  Punitive damages are designed to deter the insurer from denying legitimate claims in the future, and can be multiplied several times over if the insurer is found to have acted in bad faith.  Additionally, some states allow acceleration of benefits – in which the courts can order the insurer to immediately pay future benefits that would owed to the claimant/plaintiff over the full life of the policy.

The final stage at which a lump sum buyout may be offered is after a victory at trial by the claimant/plaintiff.  You may be wondering why anybody would entertain a settlement offer right after a being awarded back benefits, damages, and costs at trial – why accept anything less?  The answer is simple: appeals.  The insurance company can tie up a trial court victory in the court of appeals for years, which they can use as leverage to offer a settlement smaller than the trial award.

Though these three stages of litigation are the most common points at which a buyout may occur, buyouts themselves are uncommon during litigation.  Depending on the situation, the specter of a long, drawn out legal battle can either provide the insurance company with the incentive to settle the lawsuit early with a buyout or harden its resolve to fight the claim to the bitter end.  You cannot count on simply filing a lawsuit and expecting the insurance company to be eager to settle.  Some insurance companies want to settle early and avoid the financial risks and bad publicity of a defeat at trial, while others take a hard line and use their nearly limitless resources to fight a war of attrition.  Ultimately, whether or not an insurer offers a lump sum buyout in the midst of litigation depends largely on the individual facts of the case, the risks at trial, and the parties and attorneys involved.

Share

Thinking About A Policy Buyout? How Lump Sum Settlements Work: Part 1

Lump sum buyouts are a frequent source of questions from our clients and potential clients. With that in mind, the next few posts will address different aspects of the buyout process.

Buyouts typically occur in one of two situations: 1) after you’ve been on claim for several years, or 2) after a lawsuit has been filed.  This blog post will focus on the first scenario.

Lump sum buyouts that occur outside of litigation normally won’t occur unless and until the insurance company decides that you are totally and permanently disabled under the policy definition.  Typically, the insurer won’t consider whether this is the case until you’ve been on claim for at least two years.  If the insurer determines that you’re totally and permanently disabled, it will then determine whether it makes sense financially for the company to offer you a percentage of your total future benefits rather than keep paying your monthly benefits for the entire duration of your claim.

To understand how the insurance company calculates whether a buyout is in its financial interest, you should understand how insurance company reserves work.  The purpose of reserves is to ensure that the insurance company has the resources to fulfill its obligations to policyholders even if the company has financial difficulties.  Thus, disability insurers are required by state regulators to keep a certain amount of money set aside, or “reserved,” to pay future claims.  Any money required to be kept in a reserve is money that the insurer can’t spend on other things or pay out in dividends.  The amounts required to be kept in the reserve are determined by the state, depending on factors like how much the monthly benefit is and how long the claim is expected to last.

For a disability insurance claim, a graph of the required reserve amount over time looks like a Bell curve: low at the beginning, highest in the middle, and low again towards the end of the benefit period.  The ideal time for a settlement, from an insurance company’s perspective, is at or just before the high middle point–typically about five to seven years into the claim, depending on the claimant’s age and the duration of the benefit period.  At this point, the company is having to set aside the highest amount of money in the reserve.

If the insurance company can pay you a percentage of your total future benefits, it can not only save money in the long run, but it can release the money in the reserve.  The insurer can then use those funds for other purposes, including providing dividends for its investors.  In addition, the insurance company will save all of the administrative expenses it was putting towards monitoring your claim.

In the next post, we’ll address how and why buyouts occur after a lawsuit has been filed.

Share

How Does an Incontestability Clause Protect My Disability Insurance Claim?

When reading your disability insurance policy you may come across a clause entitled “Incontestable.” An example of an incontestable clause from Berkshire (a subsidiary of Guardian Life Insurance Company) is as follows:

 Berkshire - Incontestable

This clause is required by statute, and it protects you in a couple of ways.

First, it protects you against being denied coverage because of a preexisting condition.  This clause precludes insurance carriers from inquiring into the representations you made on the policy application if the two-year incontestable period has lapsed.  In essence, the clause gives insurers a two-year time limit to review policy applications.  If the insurance company makes no inquiry in those two years, they lose the ability to rescind the policy based on the accuracy of your representations in the policy application’s paperwork.

For example in the case of Robison v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen Ins. Dept.,[1] the plaintiff had been treated for tuberculosis prior to the effective date of the policy.  Three years after obtaining the policy he became disabled from tuberculosis.  When the insurance company tried to deny the insured’s claim, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the incontestable clause of the contract precluded the insurance company from inquiring about the insured’s health prior to the effective date of the policy.[2]

Second, this clause protects you against an insurance company’s attempt to deny a claim based on a representation you made that is not material.  For instance, when filling out the application for the insurance policy, you might write down the wrong year that you had some minor knee surgery.  An insurance company cannot use such a miniscule and immaterial mistake to deny you coverage when your claim is for debilitating arthritis in your hands which doesn’t allow you to practice properly in your field of medicine.

Third, this clause protects an insured that is completely truthful when filling out the policy paperwork.  In Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v. Haas the court upheld a policy which limited “coverage to sicknesses that ‘first manifest’ themselves after the policy has been issued.”[3]  This means that if you have a condition before the insurer issued the policy, but you don’t become aware of it until after the policy has become effective, the condition should be covered.

It is important to remember that and incontestable clause usually includes a caveat: it does not protect an insured that knowingly or fraudulently misrepresents information during the application process. The Haas court stated that the language of the incontestable clause “does not protect insureds who make fraudulent misrepresentations in their applications. Rather, the language is intended to protect those insureds who are unaware of their diseases.”[4]  The insurance company in Haas (Paul Revere, a subsidiary of Unum) was allowed to deny coverage of the insured’s eye condition when the insured knew about and had been treated for the disease well before the start of the policy. The court believed that the legislature did not intend for the mandatory incontestable clause to be “an invitation for fraudulent applications for disability insurance.”[5]  The preexisting eye condition was deemed to be a fraudulent misrepresentation, and the insurance company denied its coverage.  We also discussed this topic in a previous post entitled “Medical History Misstatements On A Disability Insurance Application Can Void The Policy In The Future.”

The outcomes of the cases based on incontestable clauses show how important it is to be truthful throughout the insurance claim process.  The more accurate you are about your health condition, the fewer coverage problems you may have down the road.


[1] Robison v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen Ins. Dept., 73 Ariz. 352, 241 P.2d 791 (1952), opinion modified on reh’g on other grounds, 74 Ariz. 44, 243 P.2d 472 (1952).

[2] Id.

[3] Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v. Haas, 137 N.J. 190, 210, 644 A.2d 1098, 1108 (1994).

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 190, 208, 644 A.2d 1098, 1107.

Share

How Long Do I Have to Formally File My Claim?

You have finally come to the realization that working through the pain and limitations of your disability is no longer in your best interests.  Continuing to work is not an option for you, so you have decided to make a long term disability insurance claim.  How long do you have to file your claim?  Does it have to be on the day that you become disabled, or can it happen couple months down the road?  The answer to that question is: it depends.

Insurance companies will try and exploit every option available to deny a claim for disability insurance benefits.  One method they utilize is to put strict requirements on how and when an insured must give notice to the company of their disability and what that notice must contain.

The first place to start looking to determine your insurance company’s requirements is the insurance policy itself.  Look through the policy index or headings for a section similar to “Notice of Claim.”  This section lets you know how much time is available to file a disability claim with the company.

The following are a couple of examples from different companies of what these sections look like.   MassMutual’s notice of claim section:

MM - Notice of claim

Berkshire’s notice of claim section:

Berkshire - Notice of a claim

Unum’s notice of claim section:

 Unum - Notice of a claim

Continue reading How Long Do I Have to Formally File My Claim?

Share

Provident Loses the Battle Over Discovery of Employee Compensation and Bonus Information Tied to the Denial of Insurance Benefits.

In previous posts entitled “Why Is It So Hard To Collect On My Disability Insurance Policy?” and “Does Your Unum Claims Handler Have a Personal Financial Incentive to Deny or Terminate Your Disability Claim?”, we reviewed a leading reason behind insurance companies denying disability insurance claims: claims managers often receive incentives, including bonuses, depending on the amount of money they save the company.  For the claims department, saving the company money is frequently achieved by denying the claims of existing customers who are receiving disability insurance benefits.  This conflict of interest is a probable basis for denial or termination of many legitimate disability claims.

A recent discovery decision by the United States District Court, N.D. California in Welle v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5663221 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2013) comes as a major win for those with legitimate disability claims.  There, Doctor Dana Welle injured her left arm in a bike accident.   After multiple surgeries, she was diagnosed with ulnar neuropathy and left medial epicondylitis.  This condition gave her pain and weakness in her left arm that impacted her ability to safely care for her patients.  After Provident Life Insurance (a Unum company) had paid almost three years of disability insurance benefits to Ms. Welle, the company denied her benefits.[1]

In her suit against Provident, which claimed bad faith denial of her benefits, Dr. Welle alleged that Provident’s “incentive structure was based on performance, and performance may be measured, in terms of resolution of claims, including her own.”[2]  Dr. Welle requested Provident to produce “any and all documents that reflect, refer or relate to bonus awards, including but not limited to the performance rating and percent of bonus awarded” to claims managers and claim handlers.[3]

Provident objected to the request because, as they argued, it was overly broad and sought to obtain information that was private, proprietary and confidential.  The Court overruled Provident’s objections and allowed the discovery.  The Court reasoned that the information she sought in her requests “speaks to whether her claim was improperly denied and whether Provident encourages bad faith practices.”[4]

The Court further reasoned that Dr. Welle had shown compelling need for the documents that related to the bonuses of those involved in adjusting her disability insurance claim, and that the information was “highly relevant to her bad faith claim.”[5]  The Court disagreed with Provident’s concern with the request being overly broad because it only requested bonus and performance related information of specific individuals.   The Court also disagreed with Provident’s defense that discovering the information would breach the employees’ privacy rights, or that the information was proprietary and confidential, because Dr. Welle had already stipulated to a confidentiality agreement and protective order that covered the entire proceeding.[6]

Thus, the Court allowed discovery of the employees’ bonus and performance related compensation documents.  Though this is not the end of Dr. Welle’s fight to receive her legitimate disability insurance benefits, it is a major step in helping her get the ammunition she needs to assure her of future benefits under the policy.


[1] Welle v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2013 WL 5663221 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2013).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Share

President Obama Proclaims Today “International Day of Persons with Disabilities 2012”

A PROCLAMATION

Americans have always understood that each of us is entitled to a set of fundamental freedoms and protections under the law, and that when everyone gets a fair shot at opportunity, all of us do better. For more than two decades, our country has upheld those basic promises for persons with disabilities through the Americans with Disabilities Act — a sweeping civil rights bill that moved our Nation forward in the journey to equality for all. And from making health care more affordable to ensuring new technologies are accessible, we have continued to build on that progress, guided by the belief that equal access and equal opportunity are common principles that unite us as one Nation.

On the 20th International Day of Persons with Disabilities, we reaffirm that the struggle to ensure the rights of every person does not end at our borders, but extends to every country and every community. It continues for the woman who is at greater risk of abuse because of a disability and for the child who is denied the chance to get an education because of the way he was born. It goes on for the 1 billion people with disabilities worldwide who all too often cannot attend school, find work, access medical care, or receive fair treatment. These injustices are an affront to our shared humanity — which is why the United States has joined 153 other countries around the world in signing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which calls on all nations to establish protections and liberties like those afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act. While Americans with disabilities already enjoy these rights at home, they frequently face barriers when they travel, conduct business, study, or reside overseas. Ratifying the Convention in the Senate would reaffirm America’s position as the global leader on disability rights and better position us to encourage progress toward inclusion, equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for persons with disabilities worldwide.

We have come far in the long march to achieve equal opportunity for all. But even as we partner with countries across the globe in affirming universal human rights, we know our work will not be finished until the inherent dignity and worth of all persons with disabilities is guaranteed. Today, let us renew our commitment to meeting that challenge here in the United States, and let us redouble our efforts to build new paths to participation, empowerment, and progress around the world.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim December 3, 2012, as International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I call on all Americans to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this third day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

 BARACK OBAMA

Share

Berkshire Criticized by Maryland Insurance Commissioner for “Artful Neglect”

Disability insurers have a duty to fully investigate claims for benefits, as the insurance companies are well aware.  Unfortunately, some claims departments may focus their efforts on looking like they are investigating and considering information rather than actually doing so.

Berkshire, a disability insurance company that sells own-occupation policies to dentists and doctors, has garnered criticism from at least one state’s insurance commissioner for this very practice.

In Berkshire Life Insurance Company v. Maryland Insurance Administration, 142 Md. App. 628, 791 A.2d 942 (App. 2002), Berkshire attempted to claim that its insured was only partially disabled, and therefore it was only obligated to pay a fraction of the total benefits that were payable under the policy.  In finding that Berkshire’s conduct was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of Maryland’s insurance statutes and ordering it to pay restitution to the policyholder, the Maryland Insurance Commissioner also found:

Overall, Berkshire’s actions here represent what may be termed as “artful neglect.”  Berkshire gives the appearance of investigating a claim in order to render a good faith claims determination.  As part of this appearance, Berkshire timely requests financial information from its insured and then timely requests more information from its insured.  In direct contrast to this “appearance,” however, Berkshire does not analyze the information at all, much less use an analysis in a cogent and rational way to support a proper claims determination.

In a more recent Arizona case, Nunley v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, 2009 WL 529901 (D. Ariz. 2009), Berkshire tried to have the United States District Court rule that it could not be subject to punitive damages in a case involving a disabled dentist’s total disability claim.  The Court, however, denied Berkshire’s motion, finding that Berkshire might have to pay punitive damages because it did not investigate the dentist’s claim adequately or in a timely fashion.

This “artful neglect” is unlawful, and may subject a disability insurance carrier to bad faith liability.  A disability insurance claimant who thinks her insurer is not adequately investigating the claim should contact an attorney to help protect her rights.

Share