insurance litigation

Why Insurers Cannot Ignore Subjective Evidence Which Supports A Long-Term Disability Claim

Published on: August 5, 2019 | by Matt Pulle

In our firm’s experience, administrators of ERISA plans (“insurers”) are quick to disregard subjective conditions when evaluating individual claims for long-term disability benefits. Although conditions like chronic pain, stress and fatigue can make it impossible for people to work a full-time job, insurers will regularly discount medical evidence that cannot be measured by an X-Ray, MRI, blood test or other objective measurements. There is good news for claimants, however. In the Sixth Circuit, which includes the federal district courts in Tennessee, courts have repeatedly stated that insurers cannot ignore subjective evidence in support of a disability claim−unless the policy at issue allows them to do so.

For example, in Evans v. Unumprovident Corp. (6th Cir.2006), a claimant applied for long-term disability benefits on the basis that her epileptic seizures prevented her from working at her job as a nursing home administrator. Her treating physician stated that the stress from her job led to the severity and frequency of her seizures. While on medical leave, the claimant’s condition improved. As a result, her treating physician determined that it would be in her best interest not to return to work.

However, the insurer denied the claim finding it unreasonable for the claimant’s physician to opine that a return to work would exacerbate the claimant’s condition. In reaching this decision, the insurer relied heavily on its own physician’s review of the claimant’s medical records, in which that reviewing physician determined that the impact of stress on the claimant’s condition was entirely self-reported and had not been corroborated by medical studies.

Finding that the insurer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s re-instatement of disability benefits. It also affirmed the district court’s award of past-due benefits and attorney’s fees. In explaining its ruling, the court observed that, while the insurer’s physicians described the plaintiff’s stress as “unverifiable,” her disability policy “does not state that self-reported occurrences are to be accorded lesser significance when considering whether a person is able to work.”

When Denying a Claim for Long-Term Disability Benefits, Plan Administrators Must Evaluate the Demands of the Claimant’s Job

Published on: April 1, 2019 | by Matt Pulle

When we are retained by a new ERISA disability client, one of the first documents we review is the letter from the plan administrator denying long-term disability benefits, or, as it is most often called, the “denial letter.” Most denial letters, regardless of the disability at issue, follow the same formula: A general description of the claimant’s physical or mental condition, a brief explanation downplaying the severity of the claimant’s condition, and a conclusory sentence stating that the claimant is able to meet the occupational standard of the policy.

This type of letter can be challenged in court as evidence that the plan administrator’s denial of disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious, and should be overturned. For example, in Elliott v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (2006), the Sixth Circuit examined a denial letter that noted that the plaintiff’s medical documentation “does not support a condition of a severity that would prevent you from working.” The court took issue with the defendant’s denial letter. It noted that the denial letter included “no statement or discussion” of the plaintiff’s occupational duties or her ability, or inability, to perform them. The court also observed that the physician who reviewed the claim on behalf of the defendant gave no opinion as to how the plaintiff’s “medical condition” related to the demands of the job.

As the Elliot court saw it, the defendant’s denial letter was evidence that the defendant did not make a “reasoned judgment” in evaluating the plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits. More specifically, the defendant failed to rely on medical evidence that assessed the plaintiff’s physical ability to perform her job. Because of the defendant’s flawed review, the court overturned the defendant’s denial of long-term disability benefits.

The Tennessee Slayer Statute: How It Applies to Life Insurance Litigation

Published on: December 19, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

Like most states, Tennessee has a slayer statute that prevents a person who intentionally caused the death of a victim from inheriting personal or real property from the victim’s estate. Codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 31–1–106, the statute also prevents the killer from recovering life insurance proceeds from the victim, even if the killer was a named beneficiary under the policy. The statute is based on the principle that “a wrongdoer will not be allowed to benefit from his crime.”

Under Tennessee case law, a criminal conviction of first-degree murder will allow a third-party to use the slayer statute in civil court to prevent the killer from receiving property or money from the victim. However, even in the absence of a criminal conviction, a person will not be able to recover from the victim if it is shown by a “preponderance of evidence” that he or she caused the victim’s death.

The preponderance of evidence standard is the evidentiary standard used in civil court, and it is easier to meet than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard used in criminal court. The differences between the two standards are important. A party challenging the killer’s right to a recovery of life insurance proceeds can successfully invoke the slayer statute in civil court, even if the killer was found not guilty of murder in criminal court.

The slayer statute applies not only to someone who kills, but also, to someone who conspires to kill, or hires someone else to kill. It does not apply to acts of self-defense. For example, if a battered wife kills her husband in self-defense, the slayer statute will not prevent her from recovering proceeds from his life insurance policy.

The slayer statute also does not apply to accidental killings, even if the person who caused the death is at fault. The Supreme Court of Tennessee dealt with this issue in Moore v. State Farm Life Ins. Co (1994). In that case, the victim was killed after her husband lost control of the vehicle. The husband was intoxicated at the time and pled guilty to vehicular homicide.

Just Because Your Employee Disability Policy Says It’s Governed By ERISA Doesn’t Mean It Is

Published on: November 4, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

Nearly all employee benefit plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. ERISA is a federal law. As a result, claimants who sue their plans for a denial of disability benefits usually will have to try their cases in federal courts.

More importantly, in an ERISA case, a claimant must show the court that a denial of disability benefits was not merely incorrect, but “arbitrary and capricious.” That’s a difficult standard. In an ERISA case, it’s not enough for claimants to show that the plan’s decision to deny them benefits was incorrect; they must also show that the decision had no factual basis.

Despite the broad scope of ERISA, it expressly exempts from its provisions any “governmental plan.” What that means for a government employee, or anyone else covered under the exception, is that he or she can bring a lawsuit challenging a denial of disability benefits without having to contend with ERISA’s strict standards and procedural requirements. Usually, that will be an advantage to the claimant bringing the disability lawsuit.

Further, in Tennessee, a claimant exempted from ERISA by the governmental exception can raise state law claims against the disability insurer or plan administrator including a bad faith failure to pay claim. Under Tennessee’s bad faith failure to pay law, a claimant could be awarded up to 25 percent of his or her claim as a bad faith penalty. In contrast, claimants cannot avail themselves of state law remedies in a standard ERISA action.

As you might expect, under ERISA, a governmental plan includes any plan established by the federal government or by any state government. However, the definition of a governmental plan does not stop there. ERISA also extends the definition of a governmental plan to include any plan established by a political subdivision or any agency or instrumentality of the government, state or federal.

In most cases, it’s fairly easy to determine if you have a governmental plan. However, because ERISA does not provide any definition of the terms “political subdivision” or “instrumentality of government,” there are some gray areas as to when an employer’s disability plan meets the governmental exception. What’s important to remember, for claimants and practitioners alike, is that private entities may still be considered an “instrumentality of government,” particularly if they contract with a municipal organization or body.

Why You Can Still Apply for Disability Benefits After You’ve Been Fired

Published on: September 26, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

At first glance, it did not seem like a strong claim for disability benefits. The claimant, a technician, applied for short-term disability benefits claiming that he was disabled as a result of severe spinal and hip disorders. He filed his claim after his employer fired him for repeated acts of insubordination. Under the terms of his ERISA policy, no individual could qualify for disability benefits if the period of disability began when he or she was no longer an employee of the company. Solely due to this provision, the plan administrator (“Plan”) denied the claim for disability benefits.

In his lawsuit seeking to overturn the Plan’s decision to deny him disability benefits, the claimant argued that his period of disability began more than six months before his termination.

His case is Hipple v. Matrix Absence Mgmt., Inc., (E.D. Mich. June 13, 2014), and it is a decision of considerable importance for disability claimants. In Hipple, the claimant’s argument, on the surface at least, could seem flawed. How could you be disabled during a period in which you were still working? In Hipple, the court denied the Plan’s motion for summary judgment, faulting the Plan’s assumption that, because the claimant continued to show up to work until the day he was fired, “he was not disabled before that date.”

The ruling in Hipple is critical: A disability plan administrator cannot turn down a claim for disability benefits solely because the claimant continued to work after he or she began experiencing the onset of the disabling condition.

Hipple is not an anomaly, but, in fact, expanded on precedent. In the case of Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 482 F.3d 860 (6th Cir. 2007), the Sixth Circuit held that a plan administrator could not deny an employee’s claim for disability benefits “solely because the employee was present at work on or after the alleged disability onset date.” In Rochow¸ the Sixth Circuit also determined that the plaintiff, whose employment was terminated before he sought disability benefits, had been disabled under the terms of his policy before he was terminated. As the court noted: “[T]here is no logical incompatibility between working full-time and being disabled from working full-time.” Continue reading

Incontestability Provisions in Life and Disability Policies

Published on: August 7, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

Under Tennessee law, all life and disability insurance policies must include an “incontestability provision” stating that, after a period of no more than two years, the policy “shall be incontestable.” In essence, an incontestability provision prohibits an insurance company from voiding the policy because of misrepresentation in the policy application (other than an intentional or fraudulent one). Although Tennessee law requires the incontestability period to begin no more than two years after the issuance of the policy, insurers may allow for shorter periods in their policies.

Why are incontestability provisions required under law? Tennessee courts have explained that the purpose of an incontestability provision is to provide a “statute of limitations in favor of the insured” by setting out a limited period for the insurer to examine the validity of the policy. An incontestability provision gives an insurer an incentive to scrutinize an application carefully on the front end, before it begins accepting premiums. Without incontestability provisions, an insurer could overlook questionable statements on an application for coverage knowing that, years later, if the insured makes a claim for benefits, it could rely on any misstatements to deny coverage.

Even with an incontestability provision, an insurer may be able to void a policy and deny coverage based on any intentional misstatement in an application for insurance. For insurers, however, it can be difficult to prove that the person who completed the application intentionally provided incorrect information, as is necessary to establish fraud. Often, claimants and beneficiaries will be able to argue successfully that any misrepresentations made on an application for life insurance were oversights or misunderstandings.

An incontestability provision can make a critical difference in a claim for benefits. Say, for example, the owner of a life insurance policy incorrectly states in the application that the person whose life is insured by the policy has not been diagnosed with hypertension. Until the incontestability provision is triggered, the insurance company may be able to withhold death benefits on the basis that the owner’s misrepresentation voids the policy. Once the incontestability provision is in effect, however, the insurance company cannot use the owner’s misrepresentation as a reason to deny benefits, unless they can show that the misrepresentation is covered under an exception to the incontestability provision for fraud.

The Admissibility of Evidence of the Amount of Premiums Paid for a Disability Policy

Published on: June 15, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

In a trial contesting an insurer’s denial of total disability benefits, jurors, in some cases, might think that an award of total disability benefits would be an unfair windfall for the plaintiff.

To address a hidden bias like this, plaintiff’s attorneys may try to admit into evidence the amount of insurance premiums the plaintiff paid over the life of the policy. In many cases, the amount the plaintiff has paid in disability insurance policy premiums over a number of years is quite significant. Our firm has had focus group participants provide us with feedback that convinces us that many jurors are less likely to think that awarding total disability benefits to the plaintiff is undeserved if they understand how much the plaintiff paid for this type of coverage.

Can plaintiffs maintain that the amount of premiums they paid constitutes relevant evidence, if this fact is not in dispute? To put it another way, why should this evidence be admitted if the jury does not need to hear it to determine liability?

Whether courts will admit evidence of premiums paid depends on the court. We are not aware of precedent on this issue which is binding in a district court in Tennessee. What we have are unpublished (which are non-binding) cases from federal district courts outside of the Sixth Circuit (the circuit in which Tennessee is located) that go both ways.

If You Leave Your Employer but Maintain Your Disability Policy, You Probably Still Can’t Escape the Tough Rules of ERISA

Published on: May 24, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

In a dispute over long-term disability benefits, it’s important to determine if the disability policy falls within the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

ERISA is a federal statute that applies to claims for employee benefits, including disability benefits. All else being equal, a claimant will have an easier time overturning a denial of disability benefits if the employee’s disability plan is not governed by ERISA. That is because claimants making claims under policies governed by ERISA face significant hurdles not faced by claimants who have non-ERISA policies.

The most consequential difference between ERISA and non-ERISA disability cases is that federal courts decide ERISA cases under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review. What that means is that courts will not overturn a denial of disability benefits unless they find that the denial was without a factual basis. This is a highly deferential standard of review and requires a court to uphold a plan administrator’s denial of benefits if it is supported by only modest evidence in the record.

As well, ERISA claimants cannot recover extra-contractual damages that otherwise may be available under state law. In addition, ERISA claimants typically cannot avail themselves of discovery to learn more about their denial of benefits. Rather, they can only rely on what is in the administrative record, or the claim file, in arguing that they are entitled to long-term disability benefits.

Because it is so important to know if a disability case will be subject to ERISA, one would think that it would be relatively easy to figure out if the policy at issue is subject to ERISA. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. For example, in Alexander v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co (E.D. Tenn. 2009), the plaintiff’s policy bore the hallmarks of both an ERISA and a non-ERISA policy. In that case, the plaintiff, a doctor, had an individual disability policy through his employer, a medical practice. After he left the medical practice that employed him, he continued the policy and paid all the premiums.

Challenging a Life Insurance Beneficiary Designation Based on Undue Influence

Published on: April 23, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

Under Tennessee law, a party can establish that a beneficiary of a will procured the making of the will by undue influence. If undue influence is proven, the will is invalidated and the beneficiary of the invalidated will receives nothing by virtue of the will. What holds true for beneficiaries of wills procured through undue influence also holds true for beneficiaries of life insurance policies whose beneficiary status was the result of undue influence. A party can challenge a beneficiary’s right to recover under a life insurance policy by showing that the person who owned the policy (“Decedent”) changed the policy’s beneficiary designation because of undue influence.

Tennessee courts recognize that it is difficult for a party to establish undue influence through direct evidence. As a result, in a life insurance policy case, a party seeking to set aside a beneficiary designation can do so by showing “suspicious circumstances.” These suspicious circumstances usually involve the following: (1) a confidential relationship; (2) the Decedent’s physical or mental infirmity; and (3) the beneficiary’s active involvement in causing the designation of a beneficiary or beneficiaries under the life insurance policy.

Of the three circumstances above, establishing the existence of a confidential relationship is arguably the most important part of an undue influence case. So what exactly is a confidential relationship? To start, any fiduciary relationship (attorney-client, guardian-ward, conservator and incompetent) is a confidential relationship.

Familial relationships may also be confidential relationships if one party had a relationship of dominion and control with respect to a weaker party. An example of this might be a nephew taking care of an ailing uncle, who depends on the nephew for basic life care like meals and transportation to medical care providers. If the uncle removed his children as the beneficiaries of his life insurance policy in place of the nephew, a court will likely presume that the change in beneficiary designation came about due to undue influence.

That presumption of undue influence can be a game-changer. In a life insurance policy case, a beneficiary seeking to rebut a presumption of undue influence must do so by “clear and convincing” evidence, which is the highest burden of proof in most kinds of civil litigation. Despite that high bar, parties can—and do—overcome the undue influence presumption by offering evidence showing that Decedents, despite their dependence on stronger parties, made independent decisions when changing beneficiaries of life insurance policies.

Deposition of Unum and Paul Revere Representative Provides Valuable Insight on Unum’s Approach to Determining “Material and Substantial” and “Important” Duties

Published on: March 14, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

Under many disability policies, claimants must show that they cannot perform the material and substantial, or the important duties of their occupations in order to qualify for long-term disability benefits. Although these terms are essential to the determination of a disability claim, most insurers do not define the terms “material and substantial” or “important” in their policies. Nor do they provide guidance in their policies about what guidelines or factors they will use to determine the material and substantial or important duties of an insured’s occupation.

Our firm confronted this first-hand in a case in which we represent a gynecologist in a lawsuit against Unum Life Insurance Company of America and Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (collectively, “Unum”) for long-term disability benefits. Our client lacerated her tendon during a procedure and is now unable to perform major surgeries, including hysterectomies. She does, however, maintain a clinical practice in which she is able to bill for routine, simple procedures like lab work and office visits.

Our client’s income disability policies with Unum do not define the terms “material and substantial” or “important,” and provide no guidance on the factors Unum may employ to interpret those terms. So then what exactly are the “material and substantial” and “important” duties of our client’s occupation? Commonsense would tell you that people who purchase income disability policies intend to insure against a risk of an injury that would lead to a loss of income or a loss of earning potential. In our case, our client asserted that the material and substantial and important duties of her occupation were serving as a lead surgeon on major, invasive surgeries, because those procedures resulted in higher billings, clinical referrals, and post-surgical visits. These procedures were also vital in safeguarding her patients’ health.

Unum, however, did not view it that way. As a part of our lawsuit, we deposed Melissa Walsh, the corporate representative designated by Unum in response to our deposition subpoena. In her deposition, Ms. Walsh discussed a 13-page-document Unum prepared when it evaluated our client’s initial claim for disability benefits. (For your reference, we have attached a transcript of Ms. Walsh’s deposition transcript here. We’ve also attached a copy of Unum’s 13-page document here, which was exhibit 4 to the Ms. Walsh’s deposition.) The document contained all the procedures for which our client billed prior to her disability. Referred to by Ms. Walsh throughout her deposition, Unum’s billing document listed our client’s pre-disability duties, how often they were performed, and their total charges. (see pages 71-73, 92-93 and Exhibit 4 to the deposition.)