. . .
I previously blogged about the 10th Circuit’s decision in Murphy v. DeLoite & Touche and the permissible scope of discovery in claims governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). (Click here for prior post.) Although many of our local judges in the federal court in Colorado previously allowed at least some discovery sought on behalf of our clients, the gate has clearly been pushed further open. More recently, this office received favorable orders in Erickson v. Lincoln National and Bottoms v. Liberty Life. The decision issued by Magistrate Judge Shaffer in the Bottoms case has been published by Westlaw at 2011WL6181423.
In this case, Liberty Life argued that Plaintiff was not entitled to conduct discovery. Plaintiff’s discovery request sought information concerning the insurance company’s conflict of interest in rendering ERISA claim decisions, information concerning bias of the reviewing physicians retained by Liberty Life to perform a paper review of Plaintiff’s medical records, the incentive pay plans of Liberty Life employees who rendered the claim decision, and related information. Ultimately, the judge concluded Plaintiff was entitled to obtain much of this information from the insurance company.
Finally, after years of pushing this Issue, which required extensive briefing and attendance at numerous hearings, our clients’ rights to seek discovery under our federal rules of civil procedure on behalf of our clients is becoming more and more clear. Such discovery “battles” should be far less contentious in the future. Disability insurance carriers (such as Unum, Hartford, MetLife, Liberty Life, CIGNA, Sun Life, Prudential, Standard, and the others) will be required to produce information which should have always been readily available to Plaintiffs whose benefits have been denied under this biased and tainted method employed by disability carriers in rendering decisions. Judge Shaffer made it clear at the hearing and in his written decision that the days of insurance companies opposing all forms of discovery in these types of cases are over.
.
One by one, additional states are knocking down discretionary clauses in long term disability insurance policies. In Maryland this past week, its bill to outlaw discretionary clauses in their disability policies has passed both houses of their legislative branch. The bill will now move on to a full vote and eventually (presumably)signature by their governor. When that occurs, Maryland will join the list of an ever growing number of states who have passed laws in one form or another banning an insurance company’s use of a discretionary clause. Colorado is one such state. As reported in prior blogs and throughout our website, a discretionary clause can be the biggest hurdle to a successful recovery of a claimant’s denied long term disability benefits, if the claim is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). For more on discretionary review, please click here. If you believe your long term disability insurance or life insurance claim has been wrongfully denied, feel free to contact our office at any time to learn more about your rights, the law that applies to your claim and your legal options and remedies. Our initial consultations are typically performed without charge.
. . .
Our disability clients are often surprised to hear that their life insurance coverage may continue in full force and effect even if they are disabled and cant work. Most individuals have coverage in the event of disability or death through benefits or policies of insurance provided by their employer. If so, such claims are likely governed by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Most group life insurance policies contain what is often called a “waiver of premium” provision which provides that the life insurance protection continues without having to pay a premium (more…)
…
Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance policies provide benefits in the event of loss due to an accident. These policies should not be confused with life, disability, or medical insurance policies. They provide very narrowly defined benefits.
A typical AD&D policy will pay a death benefit or benefit for loss of eyesight, a hand or foot (or a combination thereof), due to an “accident.” Such defined losses must occur within a specific time-frame f (more…)
This office handles a great many number of claims on behalf of PERA Members who are seeking disability benefits. The PERA Disability Program is administered by Standard Insurance Company. For a more detailed discussion of PERA issues, please refer to the PERA disability section of our website by clicking here.
This office recently concluded litigation in the case of Leticia Nunez v. Standard Insurance and PERA. Several important rulings on legal issues were obtained from Judge Frank Plaut who was sitting by designation as the district court judge in Kit Carson County. On behalf of Ms. Nunez, we took the position that the short term disability (STD) policy issued by Standard Insurance Company to PERA for (more…)
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a decision addressing two ERISA issues: (1) what constitutes a “governmental plan;” and (2) the right to trial by jury. These issues were addressed in the case of Shirley Graham v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, 589 F.3d 1345 (10th Cir. 2009), decided December 29, 2009. This was an appeal out of the Northern District of Oklahoma.
At issue was Ms. Graham’s claim for long-term disability (LTD) income protection benefits. She was a former employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS). Unlike most LTD plans, Ms. Graham was insured under a plan established by the National Rural Letter Carriers Association (NRLCA), recognized by the USPS as the exclusive bargaining representative for rural letter carriers. The NRLCA procured the group long term disability policy from Hartford. USPS was not involved in those negotiations, nor did it sponsor the plan. Given these facts, the Court concluded that although Ms. Graham was considered a governmental employee of the USPS, the actual plan and policy at issue was obtained by an employee organization, and not the governmental employer. As a result, the plan was not a “governmental plan” and therefore not exempted from ERISA. (more…)
Earlier this year, the Law Office of Shawn E. McDermott, LLC received a favorable decision from the United States District Court Judge Christine M. Arguello in an ERISA long term disability case involving two important issues. The case handled by this office is titled Mark Kohut v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company and has now been published by WestLaw at __ F.Supp.2d __, 2008 WL 5246163 (D. Colo.). This disability case was subsequently resolved by agreement of the plaintiff and disability insurance company, Hartford Insurance.
As mentioned in an earlier blog, dated June 5, 2008, the Colorado legislature adopted C.R.S. §10-3-1116 which bans the use of “discretionary clauses” within any insurance policy, including group policies, issued in Colorado. We believe this is the first decision issued (more…)
The American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) recently released a new report on the insurance industry titled “Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse.” The report reviews some of the egregious ways the industry attempts to make large sums of money at the expense of their insureds, the consumer. The report details six methods that directly impact policy holders. It identifies the insurers who are engaging in these practices. Finally, it reviews what each consumer can do to resist these tactics. Review the AAJ report by clicking here.
The Law Office of Shawn E. McDermott LLC recently won a Colorado appellate case on behalf of its clients relating to uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) automobile insurance benefits. In this case, our clients, the Meza family members, had pursued a wrongful death claim under six different underinsured motorist policies issued to various family members of the Meza family. The claims were based on the tragic death of the family matriarch, Lucia Meza, who died in an automobile accident in 2000.
This insurance coverage denial case was initiated in 2002 by State Farm Insurance against the Mezas and three other insurance companies including Farmers, American Family and American Standard. Each of these carriers had denied the UIM claims of the Meza family members for a variety of reasons. The claims against State Farm and Farmers were resolved a few years ago. The final piece of the puzzle against American Family and American Standard was placed by the Colorado Court of Appeals with its decision on July 3, 2008 which affirmed the decision of the trial court from two years earlier. These two companies had improperly and in violation of public policy defined the term “relative” in its insurance policies in such a way to violate Colorado law. After six years of litigation, the Court of Appeals finally agreed with the legal arguments put forth by the Mezas and our office.
As the case was not published pursuant to Rule 35(f) of the Colorado appellate rules, it is reproduced below for interested readers: (more…)
…..
On June 27, 2008, the United States Supreme Court denied review in the case of Amschwand v. Spherion Corp., No. 07-841. In this author’s opinion, the Supreme Court should have accepted cert, and should thereafter have overturned the lower court’s decision in the case.
The question presented in Amschwand was whether an action by a plan beneficiary against a plan fiduciary for monetary relief equal to the insurance benefits that the beneficiary would have received absent the fiduciary’s breach of fiduciary duties seeks “equitable relief” within the meaning of ERISA §502(a)(3). To understand the question presented, a review of the facts is necessary. Mr. Amschwand was employed by Spherion Corp. and was a participant in Spherion’s group life plan, which was insured by Aetna Life Insurance Company. In 1999, Amschwand was diagnosed with cancer and took leave from his job. (more…)