Disability Insurance Law TV:
UNUM employee deposition in a disability insurance claim denial lawsuit
This video is a portion of a video-taped testimony from a long term disability insurance claim denial lawsuit. The actual testimony in this video was presented to a jury in federal court.
Disability Blog & Cases:
CUNA Mutual terminates disability benefits to woman suffering from depression and lyme disease
A Federal Appellate Court upheld an insurance company’s decision to terminate the long-term disability benefits of a woman who suffered from recurrent major depression. Although the woman claimed to now be suffering from Lyme disease, CUNA Mutual discontinued her benefits after two years due to the policy’s 24 month mental illness limitation. The Court agreed with CUNA Mutual that there was insufficient evidence to support her claim of disability due to Lyme disease. Let’s take a closer look to understand why the Court sided with CUNA Mutual.
Participating in a disability insurance plan is always an excellent idea as a safeguard against unforeseen circumstances. Nevertheless, we tend to forget that when the time comes for us to try and claim our disability benefits, the disability insurance companies are always extremely reluctant to fork out what is due to us. Quite often, the language that is used in the plan issued by the disability insurance companies contains enough ambiguities and complexities for them to wriggle out of their contractual obligations. A recent opinion rendered by the Court of Appeal in the case of Michael Palmer v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) demonstrated just how this can happen. Although Michael Palmer’s Wichita Kansas disability attorney did a commendable job in presenting this MetLife disability claim, they lost their case because there was enough leeway contained in the language of the plan which allowed MetLife to terminate Michael Palmer’s disability benefits. Let us examine the case in more detail.
A lawsuit seeking to recover monetary damages from Prudential Insurance Company (Prudential) was recently filed at the Supreme Court of the state of New York. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff Robert Hamil, through his New York disability attorney, alleged that Prudential’s termination of his long term disability claim was in violation of his benefit rights that were protected under the Employee Retirement Income Security act of 1974 (ERISA).