logo

Litigating An Insurance Bad Faith Case Based On A Denial Of Disability Benefits

Oct 15, 2019

DL Law Group

Litigating an insurance bad faith case based on a denial of disability benefits has become increasingly complex in an age where mergers and acquisitions may put distance between your defendant and your ability to prove a company-wide plan to deny benefits in order to increase profits-a clear necessity of you hope to obtain a punitive damage award.



Key to proving your case is a carefully constructed discovery plan. This includes knowing what documents to ask for, knowing who to depose and knowing the defenses you are likely to face. In addition, it will be important to be able to use past deposition and trial testimony obtained in other cases against the same or related entity.


Take, for example, UnumProvident Corporation and its group of companies. In the early 1990s there were three major competitors in the individual disability insurance business: Provident Life and Accident of Chattanooga, Tennessee; Paul Revere of Worcester, Massachusetts and Unum of Portland Maine. In 1993, following $423 million in losses that resulted from the unpredicted plummeting of interest rates, Harold Chandler, a banker, was selected to take over as President of Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company. Not long thereafter a Provident tax specialist who had never before handled a claim, Ralph Mohney, was tapped to head the entire individual disability claims department. Chandler and Mohney set in motion a series of “claims initiatives” aimed at increasing profitability by terminating claims. Memo after memo was generated documenting the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars that Provident was saving as a result of these “initiatives.” These efforts were so successful financially, that in 1997 Provident took over its former competitor Paul Revere and assumed control of its claims department. The resulting company was named the Provident Companies. Chandler remained as President and Mohney remained as the head of claims. Provident Companies then merged with Unum in 1999, and the resulting company was named UnumProvident. The same thing happened again. Now Chandler was the President and Mohney the head of claims for UnumProvident. Throughout all of this it was clear that Chandler, Mohney and their claims philosophy were carried over.


This may seem like a simple path to follow but UnumProvident is very adept at distancing itself from the companies it controls, and therefore, distancing themselves from the smoking gun documents that can be so convincing to a jury.


Connecting these dots is imperative especially when you consider that 792 cases were filed in Federal Courts naming Unum or UnumProvident in the 192 days preceding July 9, 2002. This number does not incude cases filed in State Courts or cases in which an entity other than Unum or UnumProvident was named. Convincing a judge and jury that a claims philosophy memorialized by a “smoking gun” document in 1995 was used in the denial of your client’s claim in the year 2000 can make the difference between obtaining damages for a simple breach of contract and obtaining a verdict for bad faith and punitive damages.


Ray Bourhis and Alice J. Wolfson have been litigating on behalf of policyholders for over thirty years. In the last year and a half Bourhis & Wolfson have obtained unanimous plaintiff’s verdicts in McGregor v. Paul Revere and Hangarter v. Paul Revere, UnumProvident Corp. et al.. In Hangarter, Bourhis & Wolfson secured the largest punitive damage award in California against these companies.

RELATED POSTS

What Is an ERISA Plan?

By DL Law Group • 15 Jan, 2022
ERISA stands for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It is a piece of federal legislation that governs employer-provided benefit plans. It sets up minimum standards that employers must adhere to when they offer their employees benefits. These standards include: Informing employees of their benefits packages Requiring that insurance providers and administrators follow strict policies for managing employee benefits Employees may receive legal recourse through federal court

Proving Pattern And Practice Depositions, Documents and Experts

By DL Law Group • 06 Dec, 2021
Discovery is tedious, monotonous, boring, repetitive, time consuming and unexciting. Nevertheless, most victories at trial or good settlements depend on the quality of the discovery that takes place before. Plaintiffs’ firms are usually much smaller and have fewer resources than defense firms. Therefore, from a plaintiff’s perspective, much discovery is defensive-fending off the massive discovery requests. Plaintiff’s, however, are increasingly using discovery in a cost-effective and offensive manner.  For example, let’s say you file multiple claims in different cases or jurisdictions against the same corporate defendant. These often involve essentially the same or similar allegations. Thus, it makes little sense to depose the same witnesses over and over again. Likewise, where internal company documents are an important part of the litigation, it makes no sense to have to separately depose the custodian of records repeatedly in order to establish authenticity. In addition, many businesses face mergers and acquisitions. Unfortunately, this means litigants increasingly find that the company they thought they were suing has been acquired, merged with or sold to another entity. Often key officers and managers that were part of company number one, continue in their role with companies two or three. Attorneys may try to hide the ball on this issue. This is especially true if they are aware that a predecessor corporation or individual managing agents may have previously made damaging admissions.

Can I Pursue A Bad Faith Claim Under Erisa?

By DL Law Group • 26 Oct, 2021
Insurance benefits operate as a contract between the policyholder and the insurance company. The policyholder pays premiums over time in exchange for coverage later if needed. This contractual understanding leaves many individuals shocked when their claims later get denied . Insurance companies must weed out invalid claims to protect the insurance pool. However, they may also engage in bad faith tactics to intentionally deny valid claims. In this situation, the policyholder may file a bad faith lawsuit for damages . This option is only available to people with certain types of policies. Below, our insurance lawyers in San Francisco explain bad faith claims under ERISA. Individual Insurance Policies vs. Group Plans The type of insurance plan you have directly affects your options for disputing a bad faith denial. You should determine whether your plan is an individual policy or a group plan. An individual insurance plan is not purchased through a group or employer. Typically, individuals purchase individual policies if they are contract workers, self-employed or desire supplemental benefits. Individual insurance plans are subject to state laws, including laws about bad faith practices. Plans purchased through a group or employer , however, are subject to a federal law called ERISA. Within this law is a provision about preemption. Essentially, ERISA pre-empts, or trumps, any state laws about the benefit plan. This means that plans subject to ERISA do not play by the same rules as individual plans when it comes to bad faith claims. Can I File a Bad Faith Claim Under ERISA? While ERISA was initially designed to protect certain workers’ benefits, the law does not protect policyholders against bad faith. In other words, you cannot file a bad faith claim under ERISA. If ERISA governs your policy, then your options for overturning a denied claim differ in significant ways. Further, recoverable damages are significantly limited. ERISA damages only include the amount owed under the insurance contract, and sometimes attorney’s fees. An insurance company is not punished for getting caught denying a group policy claim in bad faith. They must pay out what they should have paid out originally. Can I File a Bad Faith Claim Under an Individual Policy? State laws cover individual policy claims for a breach in contract. This means states can hold insurance companies accountable for engaging in bad faith practices in regard to a contract. Damages awarded in these cases may include: Punitive damages Attorney’s fees Awards for other costs Prejudgment interest Secure Your Insurance Benefits With Help From a San Francisco ERISA Attorney While pursuing a bad faith claim under ERISA is not possible, you still have options . Your best bet for overturning a denied claim is to work closely with an experienced ERISA attorney. After a denied claim, your next step is to appeal the decision, but the appeals process is also subject to ERISA. The appeals process is your very last chance to submit new evidence for your claim. If your appeal fails, then you can sue the insurance company, but your suit cannot introduce new evidence. For this reason, you will want an experienced San Francisco ERISA attorney on your side. Schedule a free consultation with us to learn more about DL Law Group’s legal services. You can contact us by phone at (888) 910-3980 or through our online messaging porta l .
More Posts

CONTACT US FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION

You Won't Pay Until We Win

Contact Us

Share by: