The Importance of Reading Your Policy
In previous posts, we have discussed why it is important for professionals to be actively engaged in choosing their disability policies. While agents can provide helpful advice, it is ultimately your financial well-being on the line, and ultimately up to you to review your policy, become familiar with the provisions of the policy, and confirm that you are paying for the coverage that you expected to receive.
The case of Jacobs v. Chadbourne illustrates the importance of reading your policy. In Jacobs v. Chadbourne, Gene Jacobs purchased disability insurance from Unum through the services of an independent broker. Two years later in 1988, Jacobs asked his broker about adding lifetime coverage to his policy, and Unum issued Jacobs a “Lifetime Total Disability Benefit Rider.” This rider stated that Unum would pay benefits if Jacobs’ disability begins before age 65 and continues until age 65. However, Jacobs was reportedly unaware at the time that this rider also stated that his maximum monthly insurance benefit would decrease 10% for each year after age 55 and until age 65.
In 2003, Jacobs called Unum to confirm his benefits in his disability policy. Unum faxed a letter outlining Jacobs’ benefits, which provided the policy’s issue date, the monthly premium, and the maximum monthly benefit. Notably, this letter did not mention the lifetime rider or the 10% reductions described in that rider.
In 2011, Jacobs submitted a claim for total disability benefits based on a date of disability at age 64. Unum accepted his claim and began paying benefits to him, which were subsequently reduced because of the restrictions in the lifetime rider. Jacobs sued Unum and his broker (Chadbourne) for their failure to mention the lifetime rider’s restrictions in the 2003 letter, and argued that he should be entitled to 100% of the benefit amount because he didn’t know about the percentage reductions outlined in the rider.
The Court held that, because Jacobs had the policy and lifetime rider in his possession, he was responsible for knowing the contents of his policy. The Court also found that Unum and Chadbourne had not misrepresented his coverage amounts or otherwise perpetrated fraud or injustice in the 2003 letter. Even though his broker had failed to explain the lifetime rider’s restrictions when Jacobs first purchased the coverage in 1988, and even though Unum had failed to even mention the lifetime rider when Jacobs asked about the benefits in his policy in 2003, the Court determined that Jacobs should not be rewarded for failing to read his policy.
This case highlights the importance of reading your policy and fully understanding its provisions. Oftentimes, marketing materials and policy summary sheets only outline the benefits of the policy, and you have to read the fine print to have a full understanding of the limitations of the policy. If you are considering purchasing a policy, you should not accept coverage or pay premiums for a policy until you have thoroughly reviewed and understand what you are paying for.
 Jacobs v. Chadbourne, No. 17-12868, 2018 WL 2068648 (11th Cir. May 3, 2018).