Insurance claims and lawsuits

February 22, 2021

Unum’s History of Unfair Handling of Disability Insurance Claims

Unum is one of the biggest disability and life insurers in the United States, owning subsidiaries including Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company. Unum generates billions of dollars in revenue and has boasted high rates of growth over the past few decades. Unum has also built a bad reputation for unfair handling of disability benefits claims over the years. Their aggressive and unfair tactics to avoid paying benefits to insured individuals resulted in numerous lawsuits and class actions for insurance bad faith practices, with trial losses totaling well over $100 million.

On top of individual lawsuits and class actions, in the early 2000’s, insurance regulators undertook a multistate market conduct examination to investigate reports of wrongful practices related to delaying and denying legitimate disability insurance claims. As a result, Unum entered into a multi-state settlement agreement in 2004 in which Unum agreed to review denied claims, implement new claims handling procedures, and pay a $15 million civil penalty. On top of the multi-state settlement agreement, California regulators undertook their own investigation and Unum’s California settlement agreement entailed an additional $8 million penalty as well as changes to policy provisions and claims handling procedures.

Some of the most striking problems with Unum’s handling of disability claims that insurance regulators identified included the following:

February 22, 2021

Insurance Payments in a Pandemic

by Stacy Monahan Tucker

Most insurance companies unveiled national advertising campaigns in March 2020, promising to “pause” all policy cancellations or expirations for at least a month due to non-payment of premiums. Many continued this policy, stating that insureds simply had to ask to have their insurance payment plan extended during COVID-19.

Insurance companies did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts. In most states, the state insurance commissioner issued directives asking or requiring insurance companies to do exactly this. The federal government similarly issued regulations for policies governed by ERISA, extending the deadlines for appeals until after the pandemic ends.

Despite the state and federal mandates, and their own advertising, insurers have not all followed these requirements. Many insurance companies did in fact still cancel or allow policies to lapse in the first month of the pandemic. Many more put the onus on their insureds to reach out and request help, despite promises that all such extensions would be “automatic.” Here is a summary of the positions taken by some of the major insurance companies:

December 3, 2020

Departments of Insurance Crack Down on Property Insurers During the Pandemic – No Cancellation During COVID!

by Stacy Monahan Tucker

Did your insurance company cancel your insurance due to nonpayment of premium during COVID? Be aware that most states have either requested, or required, insurers to institute a moratorium on cancellations due to nonpayment during at least part of the pandemic. If your insurance company cancelled your insurance during COVID, remind them of this fact and ask them to reinstate your policy. If they refuse, you may want to talk to a lawyer.

The entire West Coast has seen their Departments of Insurance issue requirements on this subject:

California: On March 18, 2020, California issued a “request” to all insurance companies on March 18, 2020 to provide insureds “at least” a 60 day grace period to pay insurance premiums, and to ensure that policies are not cancelled for nonpayment of premiums due to coronavirus. http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2020/release030-2020.cfm

November 25, 2020

In Proton Beam Cancer Treatment Denial Case, Kantor & Kantor Prevails in Discovery Dispute Against Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia

by Tim Rozelle

Our firm is involved in litigating a proton beam cancer treatment denial case in Georgia, Ghattas v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia, Inc., Case No. 1:20-CV-03157-ELR, 2020 WL 6867155 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 18, 2020). Defendants Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia (BCBSGA) answered Plaintiff Christopher Ghattas’ Complaint alleging the wrongful denial of his life-saving proton beam radiation therapy at Emory University Proton Therapy Center for a diagnosis of brain cancer. Following Defendant’s answering of the Complaint, counsel began preparing to conduct a Rule 26(f) Conference per the Court’s Order. Prior to the setting of this conference call, counsel for BCBSGA articulated to Plaintiff’s counsel two positions: (1) that ERISA matters were exempt from the initial disclosures requirements of FRCP Rule 26 and (2) that Plaintiff—although never having received a page of the administrative record in this case nor counsel ever discussing the standard of review to be applied to this benefits denial—was not entitled to any discovery in an ERISA matter. The Court resolved these two issues as addressed in the parties’ Joint Preliminary Report to the Court.

First, the Court agreed with Plaintiff’s position that Defendant would be required to produce initial disclosures in this matter pursuant to Rule 26. Citing Golden v. Sun Life Fin., Inc., 2:08-CV-070-WKW, 2008 WL 2782736 (M.D. Ala. July 15, 2008), the Court held that “[b]ecause this [ERISA] case involves more than just the administrative record and because the parties will be engaging in discovery, [defendant is] required to provide initial disclosures in accordance with Rule 26(a).”

Second, Plaintiff had taken the position that he was not foreclosed on any grounds from conducting targeted and limited discovery depending upon the standard of review that would apply to BCBSGA’s benefits denial. Without having produced a single page of the administrative record, BCBSGA took the position that Plaintiff was entitled to no discovery in an ERISA matter. Here, the Court agreed with Plaintiff. Citing Adams v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2008), the Court stated that it did “not agree that discovery is inappropriate here.” “In matters such as the one at hand, ‘the body of case law developed under ERISA’ requires ‘the [C]ourt, at the very least, [to] examine the facts as known to the administrator at the time the decision to deny benefits was made to determine whether the administrator’s decision was reasonable.’” Adams, 589 F. Supp. 2d at 1367. The Court held that Plaintiff was entitled to narrowly tailored discovery regarding what evidence the Plan (who claimed it was vested with discretionary authority) was aware of at the time of its decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for proton therapy.

October 15, 2020

Ninth Circuit Declines to Bar Healthcare Provider’s Lawsuit Based on Anti-assignment Provision in ERISA Health Plan

by Tim Rozelle

As many healthcare providers have experienced, anti-assignment provisions in ERISA health plans can be a full-stop to recovering unpaid claims. In good news, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital v. Community Insurance Company dba Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, et al., No. 19-55053, __F.App’x__, 2020 WL 5870513 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2020), which is a decided win for providers.

In this case, the Ninth Court considered a trial court’s award of damages in favor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital (“MLK”), for services rendered to employees of Budco— the sponsor of the ERISA plan (the “Plan”). Budco’s employees made covered visits to MLK. Although the employees had assigned their benefit payments to MLK, Anthem—the Plan administrator—ignored the assignments, and made payments directly to the employees, who were beneficiaries under the Plan. The employees retained these payments. When MLK sought payment, Anthem ignored the request. Anthem, in refusing to pay MLK, asserted that an “anti-assignment” provision was part of the Plan and justified its payments directly to the employees.

To recover the assigned payments, MLK asserted two grounds in support of its claims. First, MLK asserted that the language of the anti-assignment provision did not prohibit the assignments. The district court did not rule on this contention. Second, MLK asserted that the district court should ignore the anti-assignment provision because it was not part of the Plan.

October 8, 2020

COVID-19 Testing and Coverage: A Helpful FAQ From the California Department of Insurance

by Peter S. Sessions

The coronavirus epidemic has obviously made all our lives more complicated. Unfortunately, this headache-inducing complexity extends to our health insurance as well. Millions of Americans do not know what kind of coverage they have for coronavirus testing, how much they should have to pay for that testing, or whether there are any hidden “gotchas” that insurers might use to deny their claims or reduce payment for testing.

Fortunately, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) recently issued a COVID-19 Testing and Coverage Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) notice which helps answer some of these questions. (Much of the information is derived from federal law, so even if you don’t live in California, this FAQ may still help you.)

The FAQ addresses numerous issues, but the most important takeaways are:

October 2, 2020

Kantor & Kantor, LLP Helps Make the California Mental Health Parity Act the Most Protective in the Nation

by Elizabeth Hopkins

On Friday September 25, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that strengthens and expands mental health parity protections in California. This law amends the California Mental Health Parity Act by adding significant new protections that are good news for participants in both group and individual healthcare insurance policies (including disability policies that cover healthcare), and bad news for insurance companies that have continued to unfairly deny medically necessary coverage for the treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. Co-Founding Partner Lisa S. Kantor, working with other mental health advocates and one of the bill’s sponsors, was instrumental in the development of this law.

Among other highlights, the new law now covers all generally recognized mental health disorders as well as substance use disorders, whereas the prior law only covered a list of nine mental health disorders that were deemed severe. The legislature found the prior list was “not only incomplete and out-of-date, but also fails to encompass the range of mental health and substance use disorders whose complex interactions are contributing to overdose deaths from opioids and methamphetamines, the increase in suicides, and other so-called deaths of despair.”

The law clarifies that insurers must cover treatment at all intermediate levels of care for mental health and substance use disorders, including residential care, partial hospitalization, and intensive outpatient treatment. The legislation expressly cites two groundbreaking decisions in cases brought by Kantor & Kantor’s Co-Founding Partner Lisa Kantor – Harlick v. Blue Shield of California, and Rea v. Blue Shield of California – in which courts in California required residential treatment be covered under the prior law. Nevertheless, insurers have continued to insist that the California Mental Health Parity Act does not mandate necessary residential treatment for mental health disorder patients, an argument that should no longer be viable.

July 9, 2020

Can I File Suit if the Insurance Company Takes Too Long to Decide My Long-Term Disability Claim?

by Michelle L. Roberts

The short answer: Yes, depending on how much time has passed since you first submitted your claim.

Consider the following scenario. You work for a company that has an insured long-term disability (“LTD”) plan that is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Let us say the insurance company is Prudential Insurance Company of America. You go out on disability due to chronic pain and file a claim with Prudential on July 25, 2019. On August 19, 2019, Prudential acknowledges that it received your medical records, activities of daily living questionnaire, and work capacity questionnaire. But inexplicitly, it says it needs more time to decide your claim and takes a 30-day extension. In the meantime, Prudential reaches out to your doctor to request feedback on its medical evaluation conducted by one of its nurse reviewers. Prudential also seeks clarification from you regarding your medical history. On November 13, 2019, Prudential confirms that the file is complete, but it states it needs more time to decide your claim. It does not explain why it needs more time. Finally, on November 27, 2019, Prudential decides against you. Can you file a lawsuit?

According to Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of California, the answer is yes. See Hasten v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., No. 19-CV-07943-JSW, 2020 WL 3786229 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2020).

June 23, 2020

Some SSDI-Related Advice from Your Local Neighborhood Long Term Disability (LTD) Lawyer

by Andrew M. Kantor

Here at Kantor & Kantor we constantly find ourselves working closely with SSDI attorneys on behalf of our clients. Even more often, the evidence we secure on behalf of our clients during their LTD disputes can be utilized by your clients to support their SSDI claim as well. Here are some thoughts on our clients’ intersection between LTD and SSDI.

If we have a mutual client, use us as a resource to fight the substantive disability claim.

We can promptly provide copies of critical case documents, including testing or expert reports we have acquired in support of our client’s LTD fight. Our evidence saying a claimant is completely unable to work in any occupation on even a part time basis should be similarly useful for your SSDI case.

June 4, 2020

Business Insurance and Damage from Riots

by Stacy Monahan Tucker

The riots throughout the United States have been heartbreaking on a number of levels. While the social and political implications will be something our country grapples with for years into the future, the economic effects will be felt immediately.

Small businesses, already devastated by the pandemic and government-mandated shutdowns, are now having to deal with damage from riots and looting. How are businesses going to recover from this double assault on their bottom line?

Ideally, most businesses have insurance to provide security in the event of riots or looting. However, many insurance policies have exclusions of or limits on activities that could be viewed as “terrorism.” We do not yet know how insurers will categorize the riots.