Tennessee Disability and Life Insurance Blog

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.)

Suicide Exclusions in Life Insurance Policies: What Happens When the Cause of Death is Uncertain

Published on: February 2, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

Many life insurance policies contain exclusions that prevent the recovery of any benefits if the insured commits suicide. (In many policies, the suicide exclusion is only effective for two years from the date of issuance of the policy.) Under Tennessee law, if there is inadequate proof to determine if the death was by accident or suicide, or if the proof is conflicting or equally balanced, courts will presume the death was an accident. This is an important rule because, in many cases, it is not clear how the insured died.

For example, in Smith v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 2012 WL 405504 (M.D. Tenn. 2012), facts in the record indicated both that Gary Smith, the life insured (“Smith”), committed suicide, and that he died accidentally. The Defendant (“Prudential”) argued that Smith staged his suicide to make it look like a hunting accident, and noted that the medical examiner ruled Smith’s death a suicide. In further support of its theory that Smith took his own life, Prudential also pointed to the nature of the contact wound, the location and direction of the shot, and to the fact that Smith was an experienced hunter who Prudential asserted was too skilled to have shot himself accidentally.

Prudential also argued that Smith had a motive to take his own life because he was faced with sudden and overwhelming debts triggered by a disastrous business partnership. The insurer also rested on the fact that he died just five weeks after doubling the limits on his life insurance policy.

When Providing Information to Your Disability Insurer Be Careful: Anything You Say Can And Will be Used Against You

Published on: January 2, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

In an ERISA case, at the center of any dispute over a claimant’s eligibility for long-term disability benefits is the administrative record.

The administrative record is legalese for all the medical records, documents and other information obtained by, and submitted to, the plan administrator during the initial stages of the claim and through the appeal process.

One reason the administrative record is so important is that a claimant who challenges a denial of long-term disability benefits by filing a court action generally cannot present evidence to the court that is not in the record. Another reason is that disability insurers and plan administrators can—and will—take information from the administrative record out of context to justify denying a claim for disability benefits.

Here is a real-life example: A claimant filled out an “Activities Questionnaire” for her plan administrator and answered questions about her abilities. In the questionnaire, the claimant reported that she walked two miles a week on an underwater treadmill. One key advantage of the underwater treadmill is that it can make it easier for a person experiencing joint pain to walk because the water diminishes the pounding on the person’s knees, hips and neck. In addition, the person can hold onto the handlebars of the treadmill for support. Given these features, it is much easier to walk on an underwater treadmill than on a sidewalk or around a high school track.

The plan administrator denied the claim. In its letter explaining why it rejected the disability claim, the plan administrator specifically mentioned that the claimant was able to walk two miles a week, while neglecting to point out that she did so on an underwater treadmill. This omission was obviously self-serving because it gave an exaggerated depiction of the claimant’s abilities and condition.

The Futility Exception to the ERISA Requirement that Claimants Must Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies in Order to be Able to File a Lawsuit

Published on: December 22, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

If you have an ERISA long-term disability claim, you cannot file a lawsuit challenging an insurer’s denial of benefits until you have exhausted your administrative remedies. So, even if the insurer, or plan administrator, denied your claim for long-term disability benefits, you still need to take the time to file an administrative appeal, unless you do not want pursue your right to disability benefits.

There is an exception, however, to the rule that you must appeal the initial denial. If filing an appeal would be “futile,” a court will allow a disability lawsuit to proceed even if the claimant did not exhaust his or her administrative remedies. This exception is called the “futility doctrine,” and it is recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the circuit that includes all the federal courts in Tennessee).

Shaw v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1; One of the Most Helpful Sixth Circuit Cases for Disability Claimants and their Attorneys

Published on: November 30, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

For claimants, it is not easy to challenge an insurer’s denial of long-term disability benefits in court, particularly in an ERISA case. Courts review the insurer’s or administrator’s decision under an “arbitrary and capricious” standard meaning that they will uphold the decision as long as it was the result of a “deliberate, principled reasoning process.” To put it simply, a court will uphold a decision to deny long-term disability benefits even if it disagrees with it, so long as the insurer can point to some facts justifying the denial.

Because no two disability cases are alike, courts have not, and cannot, set out clear rules on what constitutes an arbitrary and capricious denial of benefits. However, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the circuit that includes all the federal courts in Tennessee) provides important guidance on when an insurer’s disability determination, under the arbitrary and capricious standard, will be reversed. Continue reading

Surveillance and Social Media Investigations by Long-Term Disability Insurance Companies

Published on: October 17, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

If you’re applying for long-term disability benefits, not much of your private life is off limits. Whether you’re mowing your lawn or posting on your Facebook page, your disability insurer can monitor your activities in search of any reason to deny your claim for benefits. And, it may well do so.

In O’Bryan v. Consol Energy, Inc., (2012), the Sixth Circuit (which includes all federal courts in Tennessee) held that there is nothing improper with a plan administrator conducting surveillance on a claimant for long-term disability benefits. In that case, Liberty Life Assurance Company (“Liberty”) paid an investigator to put a disability claimant under surveillance. The investigator then observed the claimant performing common daily tasks, such as getting in and out of his vehicle, putting fuel in his vehicle, and mowing the lawn. Because of the investigator’s findings, Liberty denied the disability claim. When the Plaintiff challenged the company’s decision, the court upheld Liberty’s decision to deny benefits, specifically citing Liberty’s argument that the investigator’s surveillance report contradicted the symptoms the claimant reported to his medical examiners.

Understanding the Insurable Interest Requirement for Life Insurance Policies, Part 2

Published on: October 5, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

In our last post, we discussed the insurable interest requirement in Tennessee. Under that requirement, the prospective owner of the policy must prove that he or she would suffer some type of loss if the insured were to die while the policy was in effect. This requirement prevents speculators from buying insurance on a person’s life in the hopes that the person dies before the death benefit exceeds the amount of premiums paid.

Obtaining and assigning financial instruments can be a lucrative business. So, sometimes, parties may try to structure a life insurance policy in such a way that it appears that the policy were supported by an insurable interest. Courts, however, may well scrutinize such policies, especially if it appears that a speculator used an elderly person as a conduit to acquire a beneficial interest in a life insurance policy that the speculator otherwise could not acquire.

Understanding the Insurable Interest Requirement for Life Insurance Policies, Part 1

Published on: September 22, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

The law which requires a policy owner to have an insurable interest in whatever is being insured seems fairly straightforward. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 56–7–101, a person who buys an insurance policy must have an insurable interest in what is being insured. For example, you can only take out a homeowner’s policy on your own home, and not on the home of a stranger.

In the context of life insurance, the insurable interest rule requires that the beneficiary of the policy suffer some type of loss if the insured were to die while the policy was in effect.

For example, a minor child would have an insurable interest in his or her parents. An investment firm would have an insurable interest in an entrepreneur to whom it had just given a sizable loan to start a company. In contrast, if a stranger convinced a wealthy senior citizen to let him or her take out a policy insuring the senior citizen’s life, that policy would be void.

As it relates to life insurance, the insurable interest requirement prevents speculators from buying insurance on a person’s life in the hopes that the person dies before the death benefit exceeds the amount of premiums paid.

In practice, the insurable interest requirement is not as simple as it seems. For example, what if there is an insurable interest at the time the policy is issued, but not at the time the person whose life is insured dies? That question was answered by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee in Trent v. Parker (1979). In that case, a corporation took out a life insurance policy on its CEO. The CEO later left the company, and then filed suit against the company asking the court to cancel the policy. Ruling in favor of the CEO, the lower court voided the policy stating that the company no longer had an insurable interest in its former employee.

How An Award of Social Security Disability Benefits Can Impact Your ERISA Long-Term Disability Case

Published on: September 5, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

In lawsuits challenging an ERISA plan’s denial of long-term disability benefits, can claimants who have qualified for Social Security disability benefits use that as evidence in their case? Or, to put it another way, can a decision from the Social Security Administration (SSA) on a claimant’s disability status be a factor in a court’s overall analysis of whether an ERISA plan improperly denied long-term disability benefits?

The answer to both questions is “yes,” although with caveats. Courts are mindful that the standards for determining disability under the Social Security requirements may vary considerably from the standards for determining disability under a private ERISA plan. However, as noted by the district court in Gellerman v. Jefferson Pilot Fin. Ins. Co. (S.D.Tex.2005) “no court has held that an SSA determination is completely irrelevant” in an ERISA dispute over disability benefits.

In Glenn v. Metlife (2006), the Sixth Circuit found that the insurer’s failure to give any weight to the claimant’s SSA disability determination was “perplexing” and a “significant factor” in its analysis of the claimant’s claim for long-term disability benefits. (The Sixth Circuit includes the federal district courts in Tennessee.)

In Glenn, the claimant qualified for the first phase of long-term disability benefits under her ERISA plan after she showed that she could not complete the material duties of her regular job. In order to reduce the amount of disability payments it had to make to the claimant, the insurer hired a law firm to help her with her disability claim with the SSA. The claimant then qualified for total disability benefits through the SSA, and the insurer deducted those government benefits from the disability payments that it was obliged to pay, as provided for under the policy. (All long-term disability policies this author has seen and is aware of allow the insurance company a credit for Social Security benefits.)

After receiving long-term disability benefits for two years, the claimant then had to meet the more difficult standard in phase two of her disability plan. Now, she had to show that she could not perform the material duties of any gainful occupation, as opposed to the specific material duties of her prior job. Despite receiving repeated and detailed correspondence from her physician supporting her claim, the insurer determined that she failed to meet the “any gainful occupation” standard and terminated her benefits. The claimant filed a lawsuit in district court challenging the decision, and the district court ruled in favor of the insurer. She then appealed her case to the Sixth Circuit.