California Insurance Lawyer Blog

After more than two years of fighting, five months spent submitting claims forms, a protracted appeal, a lawsuit and a call from ABC News’ “Good Morning America,” Susan Kristoff, unable to work and being treated for stage 4 cancer, finally received her long-term disability benefits.
Cigna, her insurer, announced that its change of heart resulted from “additional information” uncovered during Susan’s appeal. Susan’s lawyer Alicia Grisham thinks differently. “The insurance companies understand that if they deny and deny claims, then many of the claimants will never pursue their claims,” Grisham said, describing a tactic known as “slow walking.”

We’ve seen this before: Bury the policyholder in mountains of claims forms, move your customer service department off-shore, keep your clients on hold, lose the paperwork, deny the claim, ask for more information, subject the sick or injured claimant to a confusing and prolonged appeal process, delay, deny, delay, deny, and perhaps the insured will give up or die.

The sad fact is that there are enough people in Susan Kristoff’s situation to keep “Good Morning America” on the air well into the next century.

Is the answer, as Grisham suggests, penalizing insurance companies for slow walking by allowing punitive damages in consumer lawsuits? Right now, the federal law known as ERISA protects disability insurers from such punitive damages in employee welfare benefit cases, and that give insurers little incentive to speed up claims processing and appeals.

At the moment, a policyholder’s best protection against slow walking is speed dialing an experienced disability insurance lawyer the moment a claim is denied. Two years without income is too long to wait, even if it means you end up featured on “Good Morning America.”

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments about what standard to use when reviewing an insurance company denial of ERISA welfare benefits (employer provided long term disability insurance). MetLife v. Glenn, 06-923. Under current law, an insurance company can make a terribly unfair decision to deny employee welfare benefits, and if the benefit plan contains some “magic words” a court can be prevented from reviewing such a decision on the merits, and instead, forced to let the unfair denial stand. Those magic words, notoriously known as “discretionary clauses” give the insurance company full discretion to interpret policy language and make claims decisions. Some federal districts have developed case law which requires a reviewing court to give consideration to the fact that an insurance company in the position to both pay the claim, and grant or deny benefits, stands in an inherently conflicted position. If it can be shown that such conflict tainted the claim decision making, then some lesser degree of discretion should be given, and the insurance company’s decision given more scrutiny. The problem lies in the reality that different courts look upon these circumstances differently, and there is no one general rule to be easily and consistently applied when an insurance company plays a dual and conflicted role.

In Wanda Glenn’s case, and as in so many other disability benefits cases that pass through our offices – the only entity determining the employee isn’t disabled is the insurance company acting as a plan administrator. For Ms. Glenn, her doctor diagnosed that if she returned to work she could die. The Social Security Administration determined that she was disabled and paid her government benefits. Incredibly, MetLife alone, decided there must be a job somewhere for her, so it denied her claim, and also thereby avoided having to pay her benefits. For additional detail on the facts in Glenn, click here.

For the actual Supreme Court transcript of the hearing, which can give you a sense of how unclear (even for the Supreme Court), and frustrating this system is click here.

The bottom line is that it just isn’t fair for insurance companies to be making claims decisions that are insulated from full scrutiny or “de novo” review by the courts. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will establish a rule that recognizes, and prevents this egregious conduct in the future.

We have been helping people with claims against insurance companies for over 18 years. Obviously, there is a lot to know about this process. From the countless claim appeals and lawsuits we have handled over the years, three basic, yet critical considerations rise to the top of our list of things to keep in mind when making a health related insurance claim:

1) ALWAYS GET A COPY OF THE POLICY, AND READ IT, BEFORE MAKING YOUR CLAIM.

It may seem obvious to suggest a careful read of the policy, but we have encountered countless people who forget about this critical step. Almost every insurance policy is written with subtle (and not so subtle) limitations on or exceptions to coverage. Look for things such as “mental and nervous” or “own occupation vs. any occupation” in exceptions in Long Term Disability policies. In health policies, look for limitations on “experimental” or therapeutic treatments, brand name pharmaceuticals, eating or psychiatric disorders. Long term care policies might require lengthy periods of hospitalization, or skilled nursing as prerequisites to coverage, or may condition coverage on an unreasonable definition of incapacity. Insurance companies are notorious for trying to characterize a claim so that it falls within one of the limitations or exceptions, and oftentimes mischaracterize an unwary claimant’s own words or writings to try and support a denial.

Often, policies are governed by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) which is a Federal Law with very specific mandates about insurance claims, and can severely limit the available remedies.

2) PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE TIME LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN THE PLAN.

Almost every policy has specific time limitations relating to things such as when a claim must be made, how much time the insurance company has to respond to a claim, and/or how long a claimant has to file a lawsuit if the claim is denied. The time limits are one of the very first things to look at, and calendar, when reviewing your policy. You might be able to make some legal arguments to avoid the harsh consequences of failing to comply with these deadlines insofar as they pertain to pursuing your claim, but it is always wise to act as though the deadlines are absolute.

3) ALWAYS COMMUNICATE WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN WRITING, KEEP COPIES, AND USE CERTIFIED MAIL.

Insurance companies are in the practice of making copious notes about the substance of every phone conversation they have with an insured. The problem is, those notes may not always accurately reflect what you communicated, or even how the company representative communicated with you. The best solution to this is for you to send your questions in writing, AND to always confirm the substance of important conversations with a follow-up letter. If you can, try to get an email address for your representative, as email can serve as a very good substitute when sending letters via certified mail might be difficult.

Paying attention to these three simple rules related to insurance claims can greatly increase the probability of a successful claim, or if necessary, a successful lawsuit to force claim payment.

A court ruling that actually favors the insured and hurts insurance companies?!? As far-fetched as that sounds, particularly in California, that’s exactly what happened recently when a state appellate court questioned California health insurers’ practice of waiting until policyholders incurred medical expenses before scrutinizing individual policies for misstatements, and then canceling coverage for omissions and errors.
This long-standing practice called “post-claim underwriting” occurs when the insurer examines representations made on the policy application only AFTER medical claims have been submitted. If ANY inaccuracies are uncovered, the company CANCELS THE COVERAGE ALTOGETHER. The insured is left with the medical bills and no insurance at a time he or she needs it more than ever.
Post-claim underwriting has been illegal in California since 1993. But that hasn’t stopped insurers from attempting to circumvent the law by using the practice against unsuspecting policyholders such as Augusto Ticconi, who sued Blue Shield for denying coverage after he incurred more than $100,000 in medical expenses. Post-claim underwriting cases don’t usually make it to trial, because insurance companies quietly settle before courts have a chance to rule against them.
Ticconi didn’t go away. He asked the trial court to certify a class action, which would allow other policyholders denied coverage to benefit from a ruling against Blue Shield. The trial court denied class certification. The 2nd District California Court of Appeals overruled the trial court and ordered it to reconsider class certification.
This paves the way for a class-action lawsuit against Blue Shield and other major health insurers. The thousands of individuals taken advantage of by their insurance providers over the years may finally get a chance to win restitution for the loss of their health coverage at the worst time possible.
In Ticconi v. Blue Shield, the California Court of Appeal sent two clear messages. To insurers, the court said post-claim underwriting won’t be tolerated. And the court assured consumers they can fight insurers and win.
This is a message of hope to policyholders of life, health, disability, long-term care and every other type of insurance who have been treated unfairly by an insurance company.