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.
Unum’s CEO Gets a $750,000 Increase in Pay for an Annual Income of $12.2 million
While some disabled Unum insureds struggle to make ends meet while fighting unfair claim denials or termination of their benefits, the Times Free Press reports that Tom Watjen, the President and CEO of Unum, received a pay increase of $750,000.00 in 2011 — for a total annual income of $12.2 million — in reward for “delivering strong results in a difficult environment,” according to Unum’s compensation committee.
Watjen receives a base salary of $1.1 million, with the remaining $11.1 million tied to performance-related cash and stock incentives. In 2011, Unum had after-tax earnings of $887.6 million, an 11% return on equity, and $10.2 billion in revenue.
Questions to Ask When Choosing
a Disability Insurance Attorney
For those looking for help with their disability insurance claims, choosing an attorney is an important step. However, it can often be difficult to determine whether a particular disability insurance lawyer is the right one for you to work with. Here are some general questions to ask to help you evaluate a potential lawyer or law firm.
1. How many cases does the attorney take on each year?
2. What percentage of the attorney’s practice is devoted to disability insurance claims?
3. Does the attorney exclusively work with individual policy claimants, or does he/she handle ERISA and Social Security cases?
4. Has the attorney published any articles or been interviewed about disability insurance topics?
5. What insurance companies has the attorney dealt with?
6. Does the attorney offer comprehensive representation or short term assistance?
7. Does the attorney’s fee structure work for you?
8. What does the attorney expect to accomplish with your claim?
Selecting the right disability insurance attorney to help with your claim is a decision not to take lightly. You should never be afraid to ask questions, and the attorney will be glad to answer them.
AzMedicine publishes “Can Your Disability Insurer Dictate the Terms of Your Care?” article by Ed Comitz and Michael Vincent
Disability insurance attorney Edward O. Comitz and Michael Vincent had their article Can Your Disability Insurer Dictate the Terms of Your Care? published in the Winter edition of AzMedicine, the publication of the Arizona Medical Association. The article is excerpted below.
Can Your Disability Insurer Dictate the Terms of Your Care?
By Edward O. Comitz, Esq. and Michael Vincent
Imagine that you are a surgeon who has submitted a disability insurance claim after failed cataract surgery left you with halos, starbursts, and even temporary blindness under bright lighting. While you are dedicated to your profession, you realize that continuing to operate on patients puts them in danger. Your disability insurance company, however, will not pay your claim. It insists that you can keep performing surgeries, alleviating any occupational hazards by wearing sunglasses and using matte-finish instruments in the operating room. This scenario may sound absurd, but it is an actual example of some of the difficulties faced by many doctors seeking legitimate policy benefits. Fortunately, the surgeon in question had the common sense to cease performing surgeries rather than follow her insurer’s suggestions. Her decision did affect her financially, as benefits were denied for almost two years, and only paid after litigation ensued.
Insurance company treatment mandates are commonplace and based on their interpretation of the terms of your policy. In some cases, the insurance company goes so far as to demand surgery, invading your privacy and leaving you with the choice of either undergoing an operation involuntarily, bearing all of the medical risks and financial costs yourself, or waiving your right to collect disability insurance benefits. The decision can be difficult, but understanding your rights and obligations beforehand can help alleviate much of the worry.
Whether or not insurers can legally condition payment of your disability insurance benefits upon you following their suggested treatments depends on the specific terms in your policy. The various policy types fall into three general categories: “regular care” policies, “appropriate care” policies, and “most appropriate care” policies.
The oldest policies typically contain provisions conditioning benefits on being “under the regular care and attendance of a physician.” These “regular care” policies provide the most protection for insureds, as courts have repeatedly found that these provisions only create a duty for the insured to undergo regular monitoring by a physician to determine if the disability persists. Even if a proposed surgery is usually successful and very low risk, an insurance company cannot force it upon you. Under a policy requiring only regular care, courts will not enforce any particular course of treatment, no matter how vehemently an insurance company objects. Continue reading “AzMedicine publishes “Can Your Disability Insurer Dictate the Terms of Your Care?” article by Ed Comitz and Michael Vincent”
What is a Reservation of Rights?
When a disability insurance company is fighting a claim, it will often agree to pay benefits – but with a “reservation of rights.” What is a reservation of rights and how can it impact a legitimate disability claim?
When an insurer pays a disability claim under a reservation of rights, it is essentially providing a provisional payment. Though the insurance company may be sending you a check, it is not admitting that it actually has any liability under the policy. Instead, it is “reserving the right” to stop paying your disability claim if it can find evidence to deny it later. Once the company denies your disability claim, they can also demand you to repay them whatever proceeds they have distributed to you.
This practice is good for the insurance company, as it buys it extra time to investigate – and often later deny – a claim without putting it at risk of violating the laws against undue delay in payment. However, because the insurance company can still investigate the claim and then demand full repayment at any moment, the reservation of rights provides no peace of mind for the policyholder. Fortunately, a disability insurance attorney can protect you from this uncertainty by properly presenting your claim and thoroughly monitoring the insurance company’s actions to reach a beneficial result.
Don’t Toss the Policy: Important Documents for a Disability Insurance Claim
If you are a doctor, dentist, or other professional considering filing a long-term disability claim, there are some key disability insurance documents to collect and keep in order to properly understand and document your claim, including:
1. Your disability insurance policy
2. The insurance application
3. Notes or letters from meetings with the insurer’s sales agents
4. Notes of telephone conversations with your insurance company employees
5. Letters to and from your insurance company
6. Emails to and from your insurance company
7. Medical records
8. Billing records from your practice
9. A daily pain journal, if necessary
Make sure to keep all of your disability insurance papers and notes in an organized file, and if you have to file a claim, contact an experienced disability insurance attorney who can help you interpret your policy, present your claim, and communicate with your insurer.
Disability Insurance Bad Faith: Different States – Part 6 (Texas)
The latest installment in our series of blog posts outlines the insurer bad faith law of Texas. Previous posts covered similar laws in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.
The Texas statutes and bad faith tort law are closely related. An insurance company’s bad faith gives rise to a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act and Texas Insurance Code. If an insurance company has not acted in bad faith, it cannot be liable under the statutes. Ultimately, a private individual whose disability insurance claim was unfairly denied can bring an action against the insurance company under either the statute or the state tort law.
The Statute: Tex. Ins. Code Sec. 541.060
The Rules: It is considered by law to be an unfair or deceptive act or practice for an insurance company to engage in the following unfair settlement practices:
- Misrepresenting a material fact or policy provision to the person making the claim.
- Failing to bring about a fair, prompt, equitable settlement when the disability insurer’s responsibility to pay has become reasonably clear.
- Failing to provide a claimant with a prompt and reasonable basis, grounded in the policy or the applicable law, or the denial of the claim or a settlement offer.
- Failing to affirm or deny coverage or submit a reservation of rights.
- Refusing a settlement offer on the basis that other coverage may be available, except as specifically provided in the claimant’s policy.
- Refusing to pay a disability insurance claim without conducting a reasonable investigation.
- Undertaking to enforce a full and final release of a claim from a policyholder when only a partial payment has been made, unless the payment is a compromise settlement of a doubtful or disputed claim.
The Standard: A disability insurance company is liable for bad faith if it knew or should have known that it was reasonably clear that the claim was covered. An insurance company cannot escape bad faith liability merely by failing to investigate a claim so that it can contend that its obligation to pay was never reasonably clear.
Ed Comitz Named a Top Lawyer by North Valley Magazine and Avvo
Disability insurance attorney Edward Comitz has been named a Top Lawyer by North Valley magazine. North Valley magazine chose Mr. Comitz as a top lawyer in recognition of his superb rating on Avvo. North Valley magazine will feature Mr. Comitz as a Top Lawyer in the October/November issue.
Our disability insurance attorneys provide legal representation to protect the disability benefits of medical and dental professionals nationwide and throughout metropolitan Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tucson, Flagstaff, Sedona, Lake Havasu City, Prescott, and Yuma. We provide disability income claim advice, assistance with filing disability claims, including completion of disability claim forms and representation in disability insurance litigation.
An Inside Look at Insurer Surveillance
Insurers often spy on insureds in an attempt to “catch” them appearing non-disabled. Traditionally, insurers have hired private investigators to videotape insureds in their daily routines. More recently, disability insurers have begun to use Facebook and other social media as a one-way mirror for electronically peeping into an insured’s private life. Old-fashioned stakeouts and video surveillance are alive and well, however. Because it is so easy to misconstrue even a few seconds of video footage, all insureds need to be aware of the possibility for surveillance.
A recent article written by the insurance industry and aimed at insurers exposes the way insurers regard surveillance. Though the article cites a private investigator as saying that surveillance is the “unbiased documentation of a person’s activities,” the reality is anything but. Disability insurers will hire PIs to watch a claimant for days, and then purport that a single fifteen-second clip of the insured watering his outdoor plants, for example, is evidence of a fraudulent claim. They fail to understand the reality: Disability means unable to perform occupational duties, not absolute and perpetual helplessness. What does the insurer do with this video evidence? In their own words, “[impeach] the claimant, ultimately minimizing the value of his claim.”
Even if your insurer has obtained video surveillance, an experienced disability insurance attorney can place the video in its proper context—not just the five second clip that the insurer wants to show. Surveillance is another reason why it is important to consult with an attorney should you need to file a disability insurance claim.
How Specific is Your “Own Occupation”?
We have discussed many times the importance of an “own occupation” disability insurance policy. Such policies provide benefits if the insured is unable to perform the substantial and material duties of his own occupation, rather than requiring that the insured be unable to perform any occupation anywhere. But how specific is your own occupation?
John Simon, an environmental trial lawyer with a national practice, became disabled after an automobile accident. Pain in his legs made sitting, standing, and driving difficult. He had hand tremors, and pain medication caused a cognitive decline. He was diagnosed with regional pain syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder. Yet Prudential Insurance only paid benefits for a year before terminating Simon, claiming that law was a sedentary profession and that there was no proof that he was incapable of performing his “occupation.”
As the District Court found in its decision, Simon “was no ordinary lawyer.” He was able to establish that his national environmental law practice required extensive travel by air and automobile, including carrying heavy files. Simon spent most of his time outside of the office developing a client base, litigating, lecturing on environmental law, and serving on a government commission.
Most of Simon’s practice was originating clients for the firm rather than performing extensive legal work on each case. During his disability period, his bonuses from the firm actually increased—from his fee sharing for bringing in new clients. Thus his bonuses reflected past rather than present efforts. Though the insurer pointed to Simon’s increasing compensation as evidence of his ability to practice law, it failed to investigate the nature of that compensation.
The court found that Prudential failed to consider the functional requirements of Simon’s particular work activities. It held that all of the factors weighed in favor of concluding that Prudential’s termination of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. John Simon had his disability benefits reinstated.
This case is an excellent example of how important it is to ensure that a disability claim is properly presented to the insurance company. All too often, disability insurers attempt to misclassify insureds’ occupations as to scope or type of duties. It may be necessary, as it was in this case, to litigate to force the insurer to recognize its obligations under the disability insurance policy. Thus, if you are filing a disability insurance claim, it is important to consult with an experienced disability insurance attorney.
A Case Study in Benefit Denial
We frequently emphasize how important it is to consult with a disability insurance law firm before filing a claim. But what about at the moment when you realize that you’re too sick to work? It is vitally important to consult with a disability insurance attorney specializing in disability law as soon as possible. A recent case in which the insured was denied disability benefits illustrates the importance of consulting with an attorney from the very beginning of your illness. There are often clauses in your disability policy which require up-front strategic planning to preserve your claim. In the below case study in benefit denial, the insured found himself possibly covered by two plans but ultimately unable to collect from either.
Paul McKay was employed beginning in 1999 as an attorney at U.S. Xpress, which provided a long-term disability plan to its employees. Prior to January 1, 2004, this plan was provided by Unum. On that date, U.S. Xpress switched disability insurance providers to Reliance. Insurance coverage was supposed to be uninterrupted with employees retaining continuous disability insurance, and in fact it was. But McKay fell between the cracks due to disparate language in the policies.
During his employment, McKay developed significant cervical spine problems, and he eventually underwent surgery in June 2003. Unfortunately between September through December 2003, his condition continued to worsen. At that point he had severe cervical and lumbar disc disease, was frequently absent, and his medication made mental concentration more difficult. His last day of work at the office was December 19, 2003. He intended to work from home during January 2004, but there was no evidence that he was able to do so. U.S. Xpress continued paying McKay his usual salary until January 16 and then fired him on January 19, 2004.
McKay filed a disability claim with Unum (the insurer prior to January 1, 2004) for disability benefits, contending that he was disabled under the policy. Unum denied the claim. The court affirmed the denial. The problem for McKay was that his Unum policy contained a clause requiring a 20% loss in monthly earnings as a qualifying condition for disability benefits. Unum successfully argued that through December 31, 2003, McKay had not had any loss of earnings as U.S. Xpress had in fact paid him his full salary into January 2004. McKay argued that he may have received his salary but he was incapable of earning it. The court followed the plain language of the policy and regardless of whether McKay earned his keep in December, found no loss and ruled that he was ineligible for benefits.
Reasonably enough, McKay rationalized that if Unum wouldn’t cover him, then he must be covered by Reliance (who took over on January 1). He filed a claim with Reliance, only to discover that Reliance’s policy had two important but often-overlooked requirements: To be eligible for insurance without the usual 60-day waiting period (which would have started coverage on March 1), McKay had to be “actively at work” as of January 1 and his disability had to begin on or after January 1. Reliance denied the claim, asserting that McKay wasn’t “actively at work” because he was not working full-time (at least 33 hours per week) as of January 1. Recall that McKay had attempted to establish his eligibility under Unum by arguing that he had suffered a loss in earnings in December because after December 19 he wasn’t actually earning—just receiving—his salary. McKay’s statements, which had been made in support of his Unum claim, were outrageously used by Reliance to deny him benefits under Reliance’s plan.
The injustice gets worse. As a second reason for denying the claim, Reliance argued that since McKay had asserted a December disability date to Unum, had left the office after December 19, and had since received Social Security disability benefits based on a December 2003 disability date, McKay’s disability began before January 1. Thus, he was ineligible for benefits under Reliance’s plan. The court agreed with Reliance’s reasoning.
On appeal, the Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s rulings. The Court noted that “McKay argues that because U.S. Xpress maintained uninterrupted LTD insurance coverage during the time period in which he sustained his disability, he must be covered by one of the two policies. McKay’s argument, while somewhat logical, is incorrect. Whether he is covered by either Unum or Reliance, or both, turns on the terms of each policy.” (emphasis added). And so it ends. Paul McKay, who was always “covered” by long-term disability insurance, turned out to not be covered at all. He receives no benefits from either policy, thanks to a coincidence of timing. Each insurer used his statements to the other to deny coverage, leaving him in a no-win scenario.
What can be done differently? Paul McKay should have immediately consulted a disability insurance attorney as soon as he suspected that he might become too ill to work. The attorney could have examined the policies and the upcoming switch in coverage and worked with Paul to develop a strategy to preserve his claim, such as resigning in December and immediately applying for benefits. This case underscores the importance of coordinated planning with an experienced disability insurance attorney.
What Happens If Your Plan Description Doesn’t Match Your Policy’s Terms?
Many people aren’t used to reading insurance policies. With their legal clauses, insurer-defined terms, and dry content, understanding them can be a challenge for insureds. For these reasons, disability insurers provide plain English summaries of their disability policies, both for marketing purposes and as a guide to benefits. But what happens if you rely upon the plan description in filing a disability claim only to be told that the actual policy language precludes your claim? Your insurer wouldn’t be alone in exploiting a situation where your plan description doesn’t match your policy’s terms.
In the recent case of Weitzenkamp v. Unum Life Insurance Company, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed such a discrepancy in a disability insurance policy and plan description. Susie Weitzenkamp was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, chronic pain, anxiety, and depression—all self-reported symptoms. Her summary plan description listed a twenty-four month restriction on disabilities due to mental illness and substance abuse. What the summary failed to mention, however, was that the policy also had a twenty-four month cap on benefits for disabilities primarily based on self-reported symptoms. Ms. Weitzenkamp suddenly found her benefits abruptly terminated.
On appeal, the Circuit Court noted that a summary plan description is intended to be a “capsule guide [to the plan] in simple language.” The relevant law required that the summary include “the plan’s requirements respecting eligibility for participation and benefits” and “circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial or loss of benefits.” Because the summary failed to mention this important policy provision denying benefits for self-reported symptoms, it violated federal law. The court prohibited Unum from relying upon the policy provision in denying Ms. Weitzenkamp’s claim, reinstating her past benefits though still leaving her to prove her ongoing eligibility under the merits of the policy.
This case illustrates but a portion of the complexity in disability insurance cases. What can physicians do to protect themselves? It is important to thoroughly understand both your actual policy and the insurer’s marketing literature. Physicians should retain all insurer-provided materials from both before and after the purchase of their policy, and consult with an experienced disability insurance attorney should they need to file a claim.
How Can You Play by the Rules if You Don’t Know Them?
When filing a disability insurance claim, it’s critical that you consult with an experienced disability insurance attorney. While we have previously discussed the importance of understanding the specific definitions assigned to terms in a disability policy, the interpretation of a policy depends upon more than its internal definitions. State law may assign particular definitions or restrictions to ambiguous terms, or may invalidate certain types of clauses as against the state’s public policy. Insureds are often unaware of this substantive body of case law that shapes the interpretation of their policy—and ultimately determines their claim’s outcome. This means that a disability insurance policy’s benefits vary from state to state. An experienced disability insurance attorney is familiar with the laws of your state and how courts will interpret the language of your policy.
Two unrelated physician disability cases, one occurring in California and the other in Georgia, serve as an excellent example of how state laws vary. Both contained virtually identical facts as to the physician’s disability and the language of the insurance policies, yet the courts arrived at opposite outcomes. In each case, the physician indisputably suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) that leaves him unable to practice medicine, with all parties agreeing that the CTS had developed over a career of repetitive hand motions.1 Each physician’s disability insurance policy provides for benefits lasting until age sixty-five for disability due to sickness, and lifetime benefits for disability due to injury.2 The question in both cases was: Is carpal tunnel syndrome a sickness or an injury? Both physicians’ policies defined “injury” as “accidental bodily injury occurring while this policy is in force.”3 However, the courts diverged as to whether carpal tunnel syndrome that had developed over a number of years was an “accidental bodily injury.”
The California court found that the physician had not suffered an “injury” under the policy because his carpal tunnel syndrome was not an “accidental bodily injury.”4 California case law has stated that an accidental bodily injury requires a sudden event causing an identifiable injury. In other words, California places the focus of “accidental” on the cause or means of the result, not on the result itself. Because the long development of the carpal tunnel syndrome did not manifest identifiable harm as it occurred, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, relying upon prior California court decisions, concluded that the physician had not experienced an accidental bodily injury under the policy. Therefore, the injury provision of the policy did not apply, and the California physician was entitled to his benefits under the sickness provision only until age sixty-five.
In Georgia, on the other hand, the Georgia Supreme Court decided that “accidental bodily injury” meant a bodily injury that was unexpected, but could have arisen from a voluntary act.5 Following prior Georgia court decisions, the court thus placed the focus of “accidental” on the result itself, not on its cause or means of the result6—the opposite of the California approach. It held that “an unexpected physical injury that disables the insured is covered as an ‘injury’ under this policy.”7 The court noted that, as here, a person could suffer a series of small traumas over an extended period that ultimately resulted in a bodily injury that was disabling, and such injuries were “accidental bodily injuries.”8 Applying this standard, the court held that the physician’s carpal tunnel syndrome was an accidental bodily injury under the policy. Therefore, the physician had experienced an “injury” within the policy’s terms, and the Georgia physician was entitled to his benefits under the injury provision for his lifetime.
The antipodal outcomes of these two cases illustrate the complexities and subtleties that occur when interpreting a disability insurance policy. Do you know how your state interprets your policy’s provisions? Insureds who are considering filing a claim on their policy should not attempt to navigate the insurer’s claims process, policy definitions, and the law on their own. An experienced attorney specializing in disability insurance law can ensure that insureds have an equal footing with their insurer should there be any legal disputes regarding a policy.
Our attorneys provide legal representation to protect the disability benefits of medical and dental professionals nationwide and throughout metropolitan Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tucson, Flagstaff, Sedona, Lake Havasu City, Prescott, and Yuma. We provide disability income claim advice, assistance with filing disability claims, including completion of disability claim forms and representation in disability insurance litigation.
A Question of Ethics: When Is It Time to File a Disability Insurance Claim?
The physician considering a disability insurance claim is faced with a difficult decision: is it really time to look after her own health, or should she just keep working through the pain? An article by Richard Gunderman, a Professor at Indiana University’s School of Medicine, in American Medical News’ Ethics Forum argues that, while physicians should not be too preoccupied with their own health, they must also consider the safety of their patients: “As physicians, we bear a duty to recognize our own health-related limitations and take appropriate steps to safeguard those that depend on us.”
On the one hand, a physician’s disability or impairment may be so severe that she honestly doubts her ability to safely care for her patients. She may already be taking fewer shifts, seeking work accommodations, delegating tasks to her colleagues, and struggling to work around her disability. She may genuinely fear that when the pain is at its worst, her patients’ health is at risk.
On the other hand, the mere pursuit of a disability insurance claim can be grueling. Insurance carriers often resort to ruthless tactics to undermine a physician’s credibility and tear holes in legitimate evidence of disability just so they can deny the claim and save a dollar.
To complicate the matter, many physicians have loved ones who depend on their income. The potential for a prolonged disability insurance claim denial—and the resulting financial and emotional distress—can be frightening.
Gunderman suggests a solution: the physician should ask herself if she is still physically able to accomplish the selfless goals that drew her to the profession and commit herself completely to the patients and the community. “If we can position ourselves on the appropriate trajectory toward this higher end,” writes Gunderman, “the lesser goals, including the health of physicians, will find their proper orientation.”
And if the pain makes that impossible, it may be time to pursue a disability insurance claim. The decision may be evidence of deeper commitment to patient care: ”What might seem at first glance an admission of weakness,” says Gunderman, ”turns out to offer powerful testimony to the strength of a physician’s dedication to patients.”
Unum Profits While Ailing Workers “Gut it Out”
In an interview with Andrew Frey of Bloomberg Businessweek, Unum Group CEO Thomas Watjen said that the economic slump has resulted in fewer disability claims being filed, with workers suffering from lower back pain, nervous conditions and other “more discretionary” conditions more likely to “gut it out” than they would in better economic times.
You can’t make a windfall on these products. It’s not like you can go on claim and make an enormous amount of money.
While workers are gutting it out, Unum has reported five straight quarterly profit increases.
