The Four Functions of Insurance
In this post, we are going to discuss the four functions of an insurance company.
Introduction – The Promise
Insurance is not like any other business. Rather than selling a tangible product that you receive immediately upon paying for it, insurance companies are selling an important promise—a promise of protection, security and peace of mind if something goes wrong.
When you buy a car, you give someone money and you take a car home. When you buy groceries, you pay money and get your groceries. Insurance is different. With insurance, you give them money and trust, and hope and pray that you never have to collect.
The Four Functions of Insurance
The activities of an insurance company can be divided into four major functions:
1. Actuarial
The actuarial department is concerned with what kind of promise the company is going to sell and how much the promise should cost. Essentially, the actuaries’ role is to analyze the financial consequences of risk and price the company’s product in a way that will allow the company to make a profit. For example, an actuary working for a car insurance company might calculate the risk that potential customers will be in a car accident, and then adjust premium amounts to account for that risk so that the insurer can pay accident claims and still make money.
2. Marketing
The marketing department is concerned with how to get people to buy the promise being sold. They design ads and employ sales people. Basically, this department’s goal is to get people interested in buying the promise.
3. Underwriting
The underwriting department determines who the company should sell the promise to. Underwriters review applications and assess whether the company should allow applicants to purchase the promise. For example, the underwriting department of a life insurance company might review health questionnaires submitted by applicants to assess whether the level of risk is low enough to provide life insurance to the applicant.
4. Claims
The claims department’s role is to process and pay legitimate claims. While the first three departments are very much concerned about profitability, the claims department is not supposed to consider company profitability when adjusting a claim. If the actuaries made a mistake and sold a product that is costing the company too much money, the product was not marketed correctly, or if underwriting was too lax, the company is supposed to pay legitimate claims and bear the loss.
Conclusion
As we have discussed in previous posts, an insurance company has a legal obligation to treat its customers fairly and deal with its customers in good faith. Ideally, the disability insurance claim process should be simple. You should inform the company that you meet the standards of the contract, provide certification from a doctor of that fact, and collect your disability benefits. It is not supposed to be an adversarial process.
Unfortunately, in instances where one or all of the first three departments mess up, some insurance companies improperly shift the burden of making a profit onto the claims department. This, in turn, transforms the claims process into an adversarial process.
If you have an experienced disability attorney involved from the outset of your disability claim, your attorney can monitor the insurance company to make sure that they are complying with their legal obligations. If you have already filed a disability claim, but believe that your insurer is not properly processing your claim, an experienced attorney can review the insurer’s conduct and determine whether the disability insurer is acting in bad faith.
New Methods of Surveillance: Part 2 – Drones
In Part 1 of this post, we discussed “stingrays”—a relatively new technology that is becoming more and more common. In Part 2, we will be discussing another new technology that is becoming increasingly prevalent as a surveillance tool—drones.
What is a “Drone”?
The term “drone” is a broad term that refers to aircrafts that are not manned by a human pilot. Some drones are controlled by an operator on the ground using remote control. Other drones are controlled by on-board computers and do not require a human operator. Drones were initially developed primarily for military use. Recently, drones have also been utilized for a wide range of non-military uses, such as aerial surveying, filmmaking, law enforcement, search and rescue, commercial surveillance, scientific research, surveying, disaster relief, archaeology, and hobby and recreational use.
How Does Drone Surveillance Work?
Typically, drones are connected to some type of control system using a data link and a wireless connection. Drones can be outfitted with a wide variety of surveillance tools, including live video, infrared, and heat-sensing cameras. Drones can also contain Wi-Fi sensors or cell tower simulators (aka “stingrays”) that can be used to track locations of cell phones. Drones can even contain wireless devices capable of delivering spyware to a phone or computers.
Conclusion
Over the past few years, several new methods of surveillance have been developed. These new technologies create a high risk of abuse by disability insurance companies, and as they become more and more commonplace and affordable, that risk will only increase. Unfortunately, in the area of surveillance, the law has not always been able to keep up with the pace of technology. In many respects, the rules regarding the use of new surveillance technologies remain unclear. Consequently, the most effective way to guard against intrusions of privacy is to be aware of the expanding abilities of existing technology, because you never know when someone could be conducting surveillance.
References:
ACLU Website: https://theyarewatching.org/technology/drones.
New Methods of Surveillance: Part 1 – “Stingrays”
In previous posts, we have discussed how insurance companies will hire private investigators to conduct surveillance on disability claimants. In the next two posts, we will be discussing some modern surveillance technologies that most people are not very familiar with – “stingrays” and drones.
What is a “Stingray”?
A “stingray” is a cell site simulator that can be used to track the location of wireless phones, tablets, and computers—basically anything that uses a cell phone network.
How Does Stingray Surveillance Work?
A “stingray” imitates cell towers and picks up on unique signals sent out by individuals attempting to use the cell phone network. The unique signal sent out is sometimes referred to as an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) and it consists of a 12 to 15 digit number.
Once the “stingray” connects to a device’s signal, it can collect information stored on the device. Usually the information collected is locational data, which is then used to track the movement of individual carrying the device.
Additionally, some “stingray” devices can intercept and extract usage information, such as call records, text messages, and Internet search history, from devices it connects to. Some “stingrays” are even able to intercept phone call conversations and deliver malicious software to personal devices.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where we will discuss drone surveillance.
References:
ACLU Website: https://theyarewatching.org/technology/stingray.
Disability Insurers Revamping Consumer Image
Many healthcare providers, some of whom also offer disability insurance such as Aetna and Cigna, have introduced elaborate marketing campaigns this past year in an effort to change their image, according to Tanzina Vega of the NY Times. These insurers want to be perceived as consumer-friendly healthcare companies, rather than merely insurance providers. The timing of the major shift in marketing makes sense as speculation increases over the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act. If the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate, which would require millions of uninsured Americans to purchase insurance, then the market will expand considerably. Therefore, a favorable ruling would enable insurers like Aetna and Cigna to target the uninsured Americans directly, instead of marketing health care packages to employers.
But even if the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is struck down, Vega says that many insurers will likely continue their direct-consumer marketing campaigns. Why? Many healthcare providers believe their future economic success largely depends on their ability to market directly to the consumer. Therefore, they will continue designing, marketing and selling insurance packages tailored to individuals, the end consumer.
Although the NY Times article focuses primarily on marketing campaigns of healthcare providers, we may see a similar, albeit less dramatic shift in the way disability insurance companies market their products as well. Disability insurance companies are already focusing on the end consumer because, like healthcare providers, they believe that future economic success depends on their ability to reach people directly. Furthermore, it makes sense that disability insurers would implement similar marketing strategies as healthcare providers because often times the health insurance companies are also disability insurers, like Aetna and Cigna.
But actions often speak louder than words. Although disability insurers may try to alter their marketing strategies to reposition themselves as consumer-friendly companies, there likely will not be a corresponding shift in the way they treat disabled professionals when handling disability claims. Unfortunately, their own financial interests too often trump those of disabled persons.
Private Investigators “Pretexting” to Deny Disability Claims
Private investigators hired by disability insurance companies pretext to acquire your personal information from others. They do this by pretending to be someone else (often you), contacting people you know, and then probing them for your sensitive information. Pretexting is not only deceptive and unprincipled, but it may also be illegal. Private investigators engage in this conduct to produce evidence that will enable insurance companies to deny your disability insurance claim.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act specifically addresses pretexting as it pertains to obtaining personal information from financial institutions. Many private investigators believe the scope of the Act is limited to pretexting with financial institutions only, therefore, they assume other pretexts—those not involving contacts with your financial institution—are legal. This is a misconception, however, according to Joel Winston, the Associate Director of the FTC, Division of Financial Practices. In an interview with PI Magazine, Winston clarifies the scope of the Act:
First, we should dispel the misimpression, if there is one, that the pretexting provisions of [the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act] only apply if the pretexter is getting “financial information.” Actually, what the statute says is if you are getting any personal, non-public information from a financial institution or the consumer, that is covered by the statute.
(emphasis added). Winston also answers other questions about pretexting as they relate to private investigators. Although the Q-A session is mainly designed to illuminate private investigators of legal fences surrounding the practice of pretexting, it is also an excellent source of information for those who fear they might become victims of unlawful pretexts, or for people who want to learn more about the illegality of pretexting.
To view the article click here.
Private Investigator Surveillance Methods and Terms
Private investigators use a variety of tactics to produce evidence that may be used to deny your disability insurance claim. Below is a list of different private investigator surveillance methods and terms.
Disability Surveillance – refers to the monitoring, recording and documenting of activities or behavior of another. In the disability context, this surveillance is called sub rosa surveillance. Sub rosa, a Latin phrase which translated means “under the rose,” denotes the secretive and clandestine nature of private investigator actions.
Disability Stake outs – according to Shannon Detective Service, Inc.—a private investigation company whose client list includes Arizona Counties Insurance Pool, CNA Commercial Insurance, Danielson Insurance, Farmers Insurance, Federated Mutual Insurance Company, Hartford Insurance, Insurance Company of the West, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Nationwide Insurance, Progressive Insurance, Seabright Insurance Company, Sedgwick Claims Service, Travelers Insurance and Westfield Insurance—this is a stationary surveillance method by which a private investigator documents and records a claimant’s activities. The hallmark feature of a stake out is that the private investigator does not move or follow the disabled claimant. In a typical stake out operation the private investigator may station in front of your home or office and record you as you come and go. The goal of the stake out is to produce evidence that will enable the insurance company to deny your disability insurance claim. An ABC News story shows how an insurance company successfully denied a doctor’s disability claim with evidence produced during a stake out.
Disability Pretexting – the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines pretexting as “the practice of getting your personal information under false pretenses.” Private investigators are engaging in illegal conduct when they use pretexting to obtain your personal information from a financial institution. See 15 U.S.C. § 6801, et seq.
Here’s an example of how this works: someone pretends to be you and calls your bank. The person claims to have forgotten your checkbook, account number, social security number or other sensitive information. He then tries to get this information from the bank. Such conduct constitutes pretexting and violates federal law. Id.
Although private investigators claim to use only “appropriate” pretexting methods, methods which are not illegal per se, these are the same techniques which are used to facilitate identity theft and consumer fraud. Check out the FTC website for more information about pretexting and how you can protect yourself.
Disability Tracking Devices and GPS – this area of the law is still evolving. In a recent Supreme Court case, United States v. Jones, the Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment; therefore, law enforcement officials need a warrant before installing the device. 132 S. Ct. 945, 949 (2012). Although the Court did not address the attachment of GPS devices in the private investigation context, its decision largely turned on the physical trespass involved in attaching a GPS device to another person’s vehicle. Id. The Court stated:
It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.
Id. Therefore, this ruling may be used to argue against private investigator installations of GPS devices since such installation would also constitute a physical trespass. Private investigation companies, such as Shannon Detective Services, Inc. (SDS), are now looking how to bypass the physical trespass issue altogether through implementation of other technologies that do not require physical attachment. Here are two examples of other technologies cited from the SDS website:
- Disability stingrays (a device that can triangulate a cell phone signal to locate a user) will become popular in the future as a way to skirt around the new GPS laws for law enforcement.
- Disability ping of cell phones (by accessing a user’s cell phone GPS chip) will also fill the gap created by GPS legislation since the FCC has mandated GPS chips to be installed in all new cell phones by 2018.
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.
Senate Committee Concerned Over
Disability Insurers’ Unfair Practices
The Senate Finance Committee recently met to discuss laws surrounding private disability insurance. Members of the Committee expressed concern over current federal law, which gives private disability insurers substantial flexibility to engage in questionable practices. The Committee Chairman, for example, commented about the conflict of interests that hired physicians face when an performing “independent” medical examination (IME) on claimants:
Many of these doctors are employed either by the insurance company or by companies that do a lot of business with the insurance company. These arrangements make it far too easy for the doctors to deny claims, terminate claims, or reject appeals.
Committee members were also concerned about discretionary clauses that private disability insurance companies include in their disability insurance plans. These clauses give the disability insurance company discretion to review disability benefits determinations. They also enable disability insurance companies to avoid certain challenges to disability benefits decisions.
Disability insurance companies have financial incentive to deny disability insurance claims. As the discussion from the Committee meeting demonstrates, current holes in the law may actually provide insurance companies with means to engage in unfair practices for their benefit. Before filing a disability benefits claim, consider consulting with an attorney first. It is important to know your rights and to have an experienced professional guide you through this process.
To read more about the Senate Finance Committee Meeting, click here.
Northwestern Mutual Offers Insight Into How Disability Insurers Interpret and Apply “Own Occupation Coverage”
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance—a major provider of disability income insurance for physicians and dentists—has just launched a new website, the “Disability Income Insurance Knowledge Center,” which it claims will help policyholders understand the terms of their “own occupation” disability insurance coverage.
“Own occupation” policies are often marketed by disability insurers as allowing physicians and dentists to receive their full disability insurance benefit, while at the same time working in another occupation, as long as they can no longer practice medicine or dentistry. Some disability insurance policies further specify that the insured’s specialty will be considered his “occupation” for purposes of “own occupation” coverage. Under these disability policies, as they are frequently marketed, an insured could receive his full benefit, even if he is still working as a physician or dentist, as long as he is disabled from his former specialty.
As an example, a neurosurgeon who develops a hand tremor may still be a capable doctor, but he can no longer perform surgery. Since he can no longer perform the principal medical duty of neurosurgery (i.e., surgery), it would be logical to conclude that he would be disabled from his occupation as a neurosurgeon. However, Northwestern’s new website has an interactive “Fact or Fiction” quiz in which it offers its interpretation as to how these “own occupation” provisions should be interpreted. Northwestern’s conclusions are gross oversimplifications that fail to consider the nuances of a disability claim, and ignore differences in policy language and the manner in which the policies have been interpreted under Arizona law. These oversimplifications appear designed to dissuade individuals with legitimate disability claims from pursuing their remedies. Nevertheless, they offer a glimpse into how disability insurers often view an insured’s occupational duties. Some samples from the “quiz” include the following statements:
Statement: If I could not perform my principal medical duty, the one that’s my “bread and butter,” I’d be considered totally disabled under an “own occ” policy.
Northwestern Mutual: FICTION. “To be totally disabled under traditional ‘own occ’ disability income insurance definitions, you would have to be unable to do ALL of your principal duties.”
Depending on the terms of his “own occupation” policy, an Arizona physician or dentist may be totally disabled if he cannot perform any substantial part of his ordinary duties in his usual and customary manner. In one major case, an invasive cardiologist was no longer able to perform invasive procedures—a substantial part of her original duties—but continued work in non-invasive cardiology and geriatrics. The jury found her totally disabled under her “own occupation” policy and held that her insurer had denied her disability insurance claim in bad faith. It then awarded her $84.5 million.
This statement also reflects an important issue in interpreting these policies – while countless words and phrases are defined, the phrase “principal duties” is generally not defined. Taking advantage of this fact, insurers often attempt to transmute incidental duties, such as staff oversight or pre- and post-operative patient consultation, into principal duties, without any justification for doing so. If insurers were permitted to do this, as Northwestern suggests, it would render “own occupation” coverage illusory since, absent a catastrophic injury, the insurer would always be able to find that the insured could perform some duty of his prior occupation. Fortunately, Arizona courts do not permit insurers to classify all duties as “principal duties.” As one Arizona court noted “[f]ew specialty occupations could survive such piecemeal scrutiny. If separated into an hour-by-hour analysis, only asking the question whether these tasks are also performed in a more general setting, specialists who choose to continue to work in a more general practice after becoming disabled from their specialty could never qualify for total disability benefits, although the policy specifically allows for this.” Continue reading “Northwestern Mutual Offers Insight Into How Disability Insurers Interpret and Apply “Own Occupation Coverage””
Disabled Doctor Wins Fight Against Unum Life
On June 11, 2010, Salient News reported on a disabled doctor who prevailed against Unum in court to receive disability insurance benefits to which he was entitled. The attorney for the doctor discussed the tactics used by the insurance company:
Unum has shown a long-standing pattern of denying occupation specific policies focusing on denying high earning professionals such as doctors, lawyers, chiropractors and the like. Unum uses its own appeal process to unjustly prejudice and deny valid and deserving claims.
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.
Colorado Bill Aims to Prevent Unum-like Denials
In an April 1, 2010 article appearing on lawyersandsettlements.com, Gordon Gibb reports:
With an eye towards preventing the kinds of practices once employed by Unum over the years and under a variety of names, including First Unum, Unum Insurance and Unum Provident, the Colorado Senate in early March passed a bill that would prohibit the payments of bonuses or financial incentives by insurance companies to adjusters who deny or delay meritorious claims or medical care.
. . .
The legislation was proposed to protect consumers from past and current practices of insurance companies that put profit over the welfare of their policyholders. A number of documented examples were provided, including the exposure of $18 million in bonus payments by Unum to insurance adjusters to deny long-term disability and various other claims.
It was reported that Senate Republicans refused to support the legislation, claiming that the bill was unnecessary and that no evidence demonstrative of such practices existed. This, in spite of a widely distributed report from “60 Minutes,” the investigative unit of CBS that provided stunning evidence of such practices.
In a broadcast aired November 17, 2002 the late Ed Bradley conducted interviews with a number of adjusters who worked for Unum Provident. They all stated unequivocally that adjusters were offered financial incentives to close claims.
UPDATE MAY 17, 2010: Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed Senate Bill 76 into law. The bill’s sponsors, Sen. Carroll and Rep. Primavera are quoted in the Governor’s Press Release as follows:
“Wrongful denials and delays of medical claims have been the top complaints against insurance companies for five years running,” Sen. Morgan Carroll said. “Senate Bill 76 protects consumers from insurance companies actually paying financial incentives to encourage denial of those claims and prohibits companies from putting profits over people’s health.”
“The only thing worse than being sick and having your health care coverage canceled, is the idea that some claims-employee on the other end of a phone was given a bonus to make that decision,” said Rep. Primavera. “This bill is so obviously the moral and right thing to do.”
A Disability Insurance Q-and-A
Phoenix and Tucson-area disability attorney Ed Comitz recently responded to some common disability insurance questions for the Pima County Medical Society’s January 2010 issue of Sombrero. He answers questions doctors and other healthcare professionals often ask, such as, “What is the difference between ‘own occupation’ and ‘any occupation’ in disability insurance?” and “Why do so many doctors’ claims get denied, and how can a law firm help?”
