California Insurance Lawyer Blog

A recent Wall Street Journal article tells the story of our client Celina Whinery, who is suing Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA), a unit of Cigna, after the insurer refused to pay benefits the policy promised upon her husband’s death because he died in a one-car accident while legally intoxicated.

LINA argues that an insured who is legally intoxicated at the time of death is not entitled to benefits -- even though the policy does not exclude intoxication. Even though the policy language does not support LINA's argument, the insurer is forcing beneficiaries around the country to sue for benefits, and then appealing the cases it loses, which is most of them.

LINA knows how to exclude drunk driving from a claim for accidental death. It has a policy form that does exactly that. Those policies are less expensive however, since benefits are further limited. Instead, LINA sold a policy to CitiGroup (Mr. Whinery’s employer) in which it charged CitiGroup more money for a policy that did not exclude drunk driving. When Ms. Whinery made a claim on the policy (asking LINA to make good on their promise to pay), LINA denied the claim saying death due to drunk driving is not an accident and thus not covered. So, LINA makes more money by charging CitiGroup for the more expensive policy, but administers and denies claims as though they are dealing with the less expensive policies that expressly contain the exclusion.

LINA told Ms. Whinery that the policy defined accident. It didn’t. Moreover, the definition of accident LINA says was in the policy is not the definition of accident that the Appellate Court ruled applies in this type of case.

To make matters worse, LINA has an internal “authoritative” claims manual instructing that in cases of drunk driving, if there is no “intoxication exclusion” that claim must be paid.

So why is LINA forcing Ms. Whinery to sue for benefits? Mainly because federal law gives carriers of employer-based insurance the “discretion” to decide which claims they will – or will not – pay, as long as the decision is not "arbitrary or capricious."

Thankfully, California, enacted a law this year that now bans the enforcement of so-called "discretionary clauses" in insurance contracts (Insurance Code section 10110.6). Going forward, insurers will have to persuade the courts that their denials are supported by credible evidence. The law might not help Ms. Whinery, who told the Wall Street Journal, “Emotionally, you are going through a lot of things, and then to add this [unfair denial] on top, it makes it even worse.”

Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) insured the life of Timothy Whinery. Mr. Whinery died in a tragic automobile accident. His wife eventually made a claim for life insurance benefits under the LINA policy. Incredibly, even though the LINA policy promised to pay benefits for a loss "caused by an accident," the policy did not define the term "accident." Worse, in this case LINA determined that Mr. Whinery's death was not caused by an accident, and so refused to pay. The facts are a bit complicated, but in essence, LINA said that because Mr. Whinery was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident, his death was "foreseeable," and foreseeable consequences cannot be deemed accidental.

What's worse, LINA actually sells life insurance policies that contain specific provisions precluding benefits when death is caused by driving while intoxicated, but the Whinery policy DID NOT contain any such exclusion. This claim should have been paid! Our view is that LINA is acting unreasonably and in bad faith in continuing to deprive the Whinery family of the life insurance benefits they paid for. You can read more details in a Lawyers.com blog item by clicking on this link: DWI Death an Accident, Insurer's Claim Rejection Not

The case is filed in the Central District of the United States District Court and is assigned to the Honorable Percy Anderson, Judge Presiding. Trial is currently set for December 20, 2011.

After years of uncertainty, an important legal question was finally resolved by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an opinion, Cyr v. Reliance Standard Life, issued today, June 22, 2011.

Sitting en banc, the Court considered whether or not an insurance company, acting as the administrator for an ERISA group disability plan, could be sued in its own name as a defendant in a lawsuit for benefits. For years, insurance companies have been arguing that they are not proper party defendants. The companies have successfully been forcing plan beneficiaries to try and track down plan administrators -- who are sometimes difficult to find, or expensive to serve -- in order to timely and properly file a lawsuit. Suing a plan administrator of an insured plan is nothing more than a charade, as it is the insurance companies who usually have final say about whether benefits will be paid. Because of a loophole in the law, insurers were able to frustrate plan participants who wanted to sue for benefits but who were not able to identify and/or properly serve the plan administrator. That game is now over.

Writing for the Court, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said "[w]e conclude, therefore, that potential liability under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) is not limited to a benefits plan or the plan administrator." The Court went further and overruled previous authority which has been used for years by insurance companies to thwart plaintiffs: "Any statements or suggestions to the contrary in our prior decisions, including Ford v. MCI Communications Corp. Health & Welfare Plan, 399 F.3d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 2005); Everhart v. Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Co., 275 F.3d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 2001); Spain v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 13 F.3d 310, 312 (9th Cir. 1993); and Gelardi v. Pertec Computer Corp., 761 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1985), are overruled."

The Court's full decision can be read by clicking this link: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/06/22/07-56869.pdf

From 2009, to 2010, United Healthcare cut in half the compensation of its Chief Operating Officer, Stephen J. Hemsley. At first blush, it would appear United Healthcare is recognizing the ballooning costs to consumers of healthcare, and it acting responsibly. First looks can be deceiving. See http://blogs.courant.com/connecticut_insurance/2011/04/unitedhealth-ceos-pay-dropped.html

In 2009, Hemsley received $102 million in total compensation from United Healthcare. In 2010, his pay was cut in half, but even after a 50% reduction, he still received an exorbitant $48.8 million dollars in compensation. The majority of this pay was in the form of stocks and stock options ($ 44 million), in addition to the $4.8 million in he was paid in salary, incentive pay, and other compensation. Putting his compensation into perspective, his 2010 compensation is equal to the sum total of the average annual household income of 2,000 American households. It would also be enough to pay a $500 monthly health insurance premium for 8,500 families. See http://www.moneytalksnews.com/2010/04/17/insurance-outrage-hike-prices-pay-ceo-100000000/

How can United Healthcare justify its continued premium increases, based on rising healthcare costs, while at the same time paying its Chief Executive $48,800,000? Shouldn’t the Board of Directors of United Healthcare be more concerned with its policyholders’ ability to access and receive quality care rather than compensating its officers in such an outrageous manner?
Andrew Goldstein of corporate compensation adviser Towers Watson says, “We all kind of scratch our heads when executives are making millions, and (corporate) directors feel obligated to give them $10,000 for financial planning, It’s not like directors haven’t thought about getting rid of perks. They’re still a sticking point for a lot of executives. They feel it’s part of their compensation package. And it’s a stature thing.” So it seems that despite these tremendous salaries, CEO’s continue to cling to these perks at the health expense and financial burden of those less fortunate. Simply because directors feel obligated, and executives feel entitled. See http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2011-04-11-CEO-perks.htm

While families struggle to afford the soaring increases in insurance rates and battle the stresses of paying for prescriptions, doctor visits, and various health issues, United Healthcare remains “America’s largest commercial health insurer based upon revenue”, seemingly profiting from our medical woes. If it wasn’t so sad, and if so many Americans were not suffering from the consequences of being uninsured, classifying compensation of $49 million dollars as “pay cut,” would be comical. Perhaps the various departments of insurance, and our legislature, should look a lot more closely at insurance executive compensation when considering how to regulate insurance costs and fix our insurance crises.

The New York Times reported this morning on a very disturbing trend. It seems various states are relaxing their laws which require insurance companies to maintain adequate reserves to pay claims, and to keep their finances transparent to the public. Why in the world would state governments do such a thing? Well, it seems there is money to be made in the form of taxing these insurance entitles...a lot of money. So, "shady" business that was mainly being conducted offshore in countries like Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, is now permissible in states like Vermont, Utah, South Carolina, Delaware and Hawaii. Those states are "aggressively remaking themselves as destinations of choice for the kind of complex private insurance transactions once done almost exclusively offshore. Roughly 30 states have passed some type of law to allow companies to set up special insurance subsidiaries called captives, which can conduct Bermuda-style financial wizardry right in a policyholder’s own backyard."

Aetna, MetLife, the Hartford Financial Services Group, Swiss Reinsurance, Genworth Financial and the American International Group (A.I.G.), among others, taken advantage of these laws and the concept of "captives" in order to refinance life, disability and long-term-care insurance policies.

One of the major concerns of these financial maneuverings is that is that some states are offering a more lenient, and less protective scheme of laws than other states and thus lure companies away from the protective states. This game may allow insurance companies to escape some of the consumer protective rules that have been put in place over the course of many years, all to the detriment of insurance consumers.

Fortunately, our California Insurance Commissioner, Dave Jones, is taking a cautious and sensible approach to all of this as can be seen from his comments. Mr. Jones remarks “we need to ensure that innovative transactions are not a strategy to drain value away from policyholders only to provide short-term enrichment to shareholders and investment bankers.”

Read the original article. It's a bit scary. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/business/economy/09insure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

We continue to see evidence in insurance company claim files that insurers are not only conducting traditional surveillance, following their insureds/our clients around, but the insurers are using the internet to snoop around and learn as much as they can about claimants, their activities, their family members, etc.

We know the insurance companies do this to protect against fraud, and there is nothing wrong with that. But, all too often, the insurers get a bit overzealous, and even intrusive in their conduct, and they start to treat everyone like a criminal of some sort.

Perhaps the most shocking example of this activity we’re aware of, is a case of one major insurer accessing private files off of a claimant’s computer. It appears that the insurer may have actually hacked into its insured’s private computer to obtain information related to internet activities, e-bay purchases, YouTube viewing history and private files.

Such activity is, of course, illegal, and may give rise to, among other things, an invasion of privacy cause of action. We continue to remind our clients and anyone with insurance who may or may not ever make an insurance claim: do not take internet privacy for granted. While it is one thing for an insurance company or any other entity or individual to illegally access your private information, it IS legal for anyone to track your internet activities you put in the public sphere of cyberspace. Be mindful that what you post, blog about, advertise, or share on social networking sites, message boards, in online fora, etc. is fair game. Moreover, the reality is often that the picture one portrays of him or her self in cyberspace, may not be a complete picture of that person's life. Unfortunately, when it comes to insurance claims, and particularly ERISA claims, such a picture may be the only one a court sees. Be mindful.

One of California’s largest health insurers -Blue Shield- has announced plans to hike its premiums by as much as 59%. These increased premiums are set to take effect on March 1, 2011. This move impacts 193,000 individual Blue Shield policy holders.

This steep double digit rate hike has raised the attention of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who has reached out to newly elected California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. “We stand ready to assist him and the people of California in any way that we can”, she stated. She went on to state, “The people of California have a right to be concerned when they see this kind of rate increase month after month.”

Commissioner Jones recently won a hard fought race for his position and on January 3, 2011 announced that rejecting excessive health insurance premiums and continuing his fight for the authority to reject these premiums are among his main priorities for his time in office. However, as he stated in his inaugural address, “Many Californians will no doubt be surprised to learn that the Insurance Commissioner does not have the legal authority to reject excessive health insurance premium increases.” Unfortunately, despite health reform, even the federal government does not have the authority to review and strike down unreasonable rate increase requests.

Instead, Commissioner Jones has requested that Blue Shield delay implementation of the rate hike so that he and state regulators have the opportunity to fully review the increase. In a statement on January 6, 2011, Jones said, “I find it stunning that Blue Shield would seek to impose such massive premium increases on policyholders during these troubling economic times....[T]hese premium increases will impose significant financial burdens on struggling families and, in some cases, will lead to the loss of health care coverage all together.”

This is just the first fight of many that Commissioner Jones will face with the insurance industry. In his inaugural address, he identified his main objective as “making the California Department of Insurance the strongest consumer protection agency in the nation” and to “set the standard for other consumer protection agencies.” His three main priorities are:

1. To implement federal health care reform and build on that reform by granting the insurance commissioner the authority to reject excessive premium increases;
2. To level the playing field for consumers and business as they deal with insurance companies...to make sure that consumer complaints are being addressed and that insurance companies are not taking advantage of consumers; and
3. Ensuring that California has a viable and competitive insurance market.

To implement his first priority, Commissioner Jones has created a new senior leadership position titled, “Deputy Commissioner for Health Care Policy and Reform.” He will continue the efforts to provide the commissioner and the Department of Managed Care the legal authority reject excessive health care premiums and he will see to it that he has the legal authority to enforce the new federal health care reform. Jones has already signed an emergency regulation giving him the authority to enforce in California, the new federal 80% medical loss ratio for the individual health insurance market. Existing California law requires insurers to spend at least 70% of premiums from the individual market on medical care. Jones’ proposal aligns California’s regulations with the national Medical Loss Ratio rules established under the federal health reform law that took effect on January 1, 2011.

The next four years under Insurance Commissioner Jones promise to be one of the most consumer oriented terms ever in California. It will be a challenge to deal with the special interests of the insurance carriers while working to protect the rights of California’s insureds. But so far, Dave Jones has demonstrated that he is ready to stand up to the insurers and protect consumers.

An exposé in the Los Angeles Times documented the struggles and tribulations individuals had to endure due to the denial or rescission of life insurance benefits by billion dollar companies like Metropolitan Life (MetLife), American General Life Insurance Company (AIG), and AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (Equitable). In a growing number of cases, life insurance companies are disputing claims based on assertions of a “material misrepresentation” made in the insurance application. Here in California, the window for making such an assertion is limited by law to two years following the application. While this shortens the potentially limitless contestibility period, it also allows insurance companies to easily focus on a subset of claims to unfairly scrutinize - often discovering and asserting mistakes that were not the fault of the insured.

We have represented claimants in these situations against big insurance companies like Prudential, Liberty Mutual, Unum, and State Farm - both in ERISA and “bad faith” litigation. We have thus seen many of the heavy handed ways in which life insurance companies unreasonably deny benefits.

Read the Los Angeles Times article and you'll get a sense for yourself: “Flaws can cancel life insurance - after death”, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/21/local/la-me-life-insure-20101121.

Some things make no sense. Consider the following where a bill to protect California consumers passes the legislature by an overwhelming majority, has no adverse fiscal impact on the State whatsoever, yet get's vetoed by the Governor with an explanation that cannot be justified....

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sept. 30, 2010
Contact: Chris Shultz, 916-319-2009 office, 916-601-2521 mobile

Dave Jones’ legislation to ban “discretionary clauses” in life and disability insurance policies vetoed by Governor

Veto maintains playing field tilted against consumers

SACRAMENTO – Today the Governor vetoed legislation by Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) to help injured workers get a fair hearing when fighting insurance companies in court.

Assembly Bill 1868 would have banned discretionary clauses in life and disability insurance policies, and leveled the playing field between insurance companies and consumers by ensuring that individuals who have been denied benefits by their insurance companies get a fair hearing in court.

“These discretionary clauses reserve authority to insurance companies to determine benefits and policy interpretation,” said Jones. “Prohibiting discretionary clauses would have leveled the playing field between insurance companies and consumers by simply ensuring that individuals who have been denied benefits by their insurance companies get a fair hearing in court. Once again, the Governor sides with insurance companies and against reform.”

Discretionary clauses reserve authority to insurance companies to determine benefits and policy interpretation. Inclusion of these clauses in insurance policies has the effect of lessening the intensity of judicial review in claims denial cases to an “abuse of discretion” standard, which is an insurmountable standard for consumers to meet.

Under current law, insurance company decisions to deny benefits are upheld as long as they are grounded in any reasonable basis, even when a judge is convinced the plaintiff is in fact disabled. This is in direct conflict with a basic principle of California law that contracts are interpreted against the drafter, and not against unsophisticated consumers who do not have the opportunity to bargain for favorable terms in their employer-provided insurance policies.

The State Senate approved the bill 23-12 and the bi-partisan vote in the Assembly was 64-11.

This post comes from a recent forum discussion Q&A with Glenn Kantor:

Q: My policy states that I can go to arbitration if I disagree with the answer to my appeal of a Long Term Disability claim. But the insurance company only mentioned a civil suit as my option if I want to dispute their denial. What’s the difference between going to arbitration and bringing a civil suit? Won’t arbitration cost less and be less complicated?

A: Bringing a civil suit means filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court and having a Federal Judge decide your case. Arbitration is outside the judicial system and is private. It can be binding or non-binding, binding with a right to appeal, or totally binding with a waiver of any appeal rights.

In a Federal Court action, other than a filing fee, there are no “costs” associated with proceeding to Judgment -- at least no costs which need to be paid to the Court.

A private arbitrator will expect to be paid. Sometimes the insurance carrier or employer will agree to pay the arbitrator. However, do you want to take part in a proceeding where the party deciding the case knows that someone else paid his bill? (Although arbitrators should not have such information, they often do.) The desire for repeat business from the insurer or employer MIGHT impact the decision, even if only subconsciously.

In the world of ERISA litigation, outcomes frequently depend on the judicial temperament of the Judge. If I could PICK the judge to whom my client’s case was to be assigned, I would always suggest a Federal lawsuit. In most jurisdictions, however, cases are randomly assigned to a judge from a pool that can be as small as two Judges or, if you are in a city such as Los Angeles, more than 30 Judges. For that reason, if the defendants are willing to select an arbitrator I have agreed to, I might be inclined to advise my client to agree to arbitration.

No lawyer could decide which option is better without a lot more information about the particulars of the case, and even then, there are so many variables involved that it is impossible to know for sure which dispute resolution methodology will more likely result in your receiving benefits.

If you are at the stage where your appeal has been denied, and you need to either file suit or agree to arbitration, please don’t make any decisions until you have discussed the matter with counsel.

The new federal healthcare legislation could bestow broad new powers on California’s next insurance commissioner, already one of the nation’s most powerful jobs of its kind, reports the Los Angeles Times. “Healthcare reform raises the stakes in California insurance commissioner election.” Four candidates are running for their parties’ nominations in the June 8 primary election -- Democrats Dave Jones and Hector De La Torre, and Republicans Brian D. Fitzgerald and Mike Villines – and the winner of the June 8 primary will face four other minor party candidates in November.

In addition to new authority under federal law, the insurance commissioner may gain the regulatory powers currently under the charge of the California Department of Managed Healthcare, which oversees health maintenance organizations, if the Legislature approves and the governor signs a bill that would shift all regulatory power to the commissioner.

This year’s insurance commissioner race is one of the most important in the state’s history.

We support Democrat Dave Jones, who proved a strong consumer advocate while serving as a California Assemblymember. In addition to supporting the regulatory shift from the Department of Managed Healthcare, Jones wants California lawmakers to give the commissioner the power to approve or reject insurer requests for rate increases, subjecting health insurance rates to the same detailed approval process that applies to automobile, home and other types of property and casualty insurance.

“I’ll be working to impose rate regulation on health insurance and healthcare plans to rein in the excessive rate increases that have afflicted California consumers year after year for the past 10 years,” Jones told the Times.

We believe Jones has the experience, leadership skills and ability to protect consumers as insurance commissioner, as well as hold insurance companies accountable when they break the law or deny benefits their customers rightfully deserve. From what we have seen thus far, he is fully capable of fulfilling the challenges facing the state and the insurance industry during the next four years and of building a bureaucracy that works in the consumers’ interests.

"Tort Reform, Tort Reform, Tort Reform," the phrase has almost become a song. Nobody likes to see undeserving people win huge, unjustified damage awards, but the fact is, it doesn't really happen in California, except on maybe on TV. Los Angeles Times business columnist Michael Hiltzik couldn’t be more correct when he writes that one of the biggest fans of so-called tort reform is the insurance industry, “because the less money they pay out to plaintiffs, the more they get to keep.” See “Why Tort Reform Is a Frivolous Diversion.”

While that statement is enough to make sensible people wary of the deep pockets behind tort reform movements, Hiltzik clears the confusion and makes a very good case about why limiting an injured victim’s ability to use the legal system to be made whole is not the great fix for rising medical costs insurers and many politicians claim.

The argument for tort reform, as Hiltzik explains, is that plaintiff lawyers are filing too many “frivolous” lawsuits and claiming millions of undeserved dollars. Doctors are ordering unnecessary tests to ensure they don’t misdiagnose or fail to diagnose something that could end up in court. As a result, medical costs escalate.

“The truth is that medical liability isn’t a big driver of health costs overall,” Hiltzik writes. “[T]he cost of malpractice litigation, in court and through defensive medicine, [is] roughly 2% to 3% of all U.S. healthcare spending.”

In California, since 1975, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) has capped recovery for pain and suffering to $250,000. That’s next to nothing when to compared to what plaintiffs can receive in other types of cases. Lawyers’ fees are also limited.

But did MICRA help consumers? According to a 2004 Rand study, the MICRA caps don’t amount to a fair distribution of justice. Victims of medical errors who had small economic losses but suffered major damage to their quality of life are unfairly compensated. Women are disproportionately affected. The MICRA cap isn’t adjusted for inflation. In today’s dollars, the award has the same purchasing power as $62,000 did in 1975. And the most unsettling result of all is that may unjustly injured people won’t even pursue a case because the award may not even cover the litigation cost.

The big MICRA winners are insurers, who last year paid out only 17 cents of every dollar they collected on medical malpractice insurance. And carriers don’t even have the good sense to be humble about it.

“At American Physicians Capital,” writes Hiltzik, “claims were falling so fast in 2007 that its chief executive publicly compared his underemployed claims managers to ‘the Maytag repairman.’ The next time you find yourself nodding in assent while some politician carries on about tort reform, remember that its benefits will go to characters like this.”

Clearly, this only reinforces what we’ve been saying all along: If you want real reform, start with the perpetrators, not the victims.

The Long Island Business News reports that many people think they have enough insurance until they need the policy. Then they learn its limitations, find they have insufficient coverage, or discover “loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.” Laura Glasser, “With Insurance, the Fine Print Matters,” June 30, 2009. This is particularly true, the article reports, for health and long-term care policyholders because they aren’t reading their policies to understand coverage limitations.

“One reason many people get surprises is they don’t know much about their coverage to begin with. If you’ve read your policy lately, you’re in the minority. Most health policies, for instance, cover up to $1 million in lifetime benefits. But most people don’t know that,” writes Glasser. Here’s what two insurance industry executives had to say about the situation:
“The information’s there,” said Ian Laird, director of strategy, sales and programs for Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield. “It’s just in a document that I don’t think the average person bothers to read.”

“You expect people to read their benefits,” said William Golden, chief executive of UnitedHealthcare’s health plan for New York, of the source of many surprises. “I’m not sure that really happens all the time. It’s important to read the small print.”
Here are two insurance executives admitting in black and white that they are selling policies that people don’t read, filled with fine print that limits coverage, and they appear just fine with the situation. In fact, one wonders if they might be taking advantage of this information by filling policies with fine print loopholes that end up surprising many people.

We say it everyday…and we’ll say it again here: READ YOUR POLICY BEFORE YOU NEED IT. If you don’t understand something, ask someone who can help.

[090701]

At Kantor & Kantor we hear from people every day about their troubles in trying to obtain benefits under Long Term Disability, Long Term Care, Health and Life insurance policies. We created our Blog as a way to try and share some of the stories we hear, as well as the news being made in these and other related insurance areas.

Well, it seems people are reading our Blog and getting a benefit out of our efforts, all of which makes it even more worthwhile. Our Blog was just recently named as one of the Top 50 Legal Blogsites by the LexisNexis Insurance Law Center. This is what they had to say: "These blogsites contain some of the best writing out there on insurance on coverage, catastrophic loss, regulatory compliance, life insurance, health care and insurance issues in general,...They contain a wealth of information for the insurance community with timely news items, practical information, expert analysis, frequent postings and helpful links to other sites. These blogsites also show us how insurance issues interact with politics and culture. Moreover, they demonstrate how bloggers can impact the world of insurance law and insurance industry issues.”

Thanks LexisNexis. We will keep on blogging!

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.