Mistreated by Your Insurer? Insurers May Not Be Able to Hide Behind ERISA Preemption to Defeat Claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNovember 30, 2015 Robert McKennon
Insureds obligingly pay premiums on their life, health and disability insurance policies and dutifully provide updated information upon request by their insurers, but often do not enjoy the same courtesy when they file an insurance claim. In extreme cases, antagonistic insurers engage in a host of tactics, including appointing claims examiners who refuse to return phone calls, conducting intrusive surveillance, accusing insureds of filing false claims or inundating the insured’s employer and treating doctors with document demands—only to deny the insured’s claim. Astonished by this treatment, many insureds wonder if they can sue them for emotional distress damages. The short answer is yes—but there are hurdles.
Group Life Insurer’s Literal Policy Interpretation Penalizing Insured for not working on Paid Holiday RejectedSeptember 08, 2015 Joe McMillen
Group life insurance policies often have confusing language about when they become effective. A trial court recently interpreted one to mean that the policy had not become effective to a full-time employee, though he was already eligible for the coverage, because he was not physically present at work when the policy was issued to his employer. Instead he was at home for a paid holiday and then in the hospital on sick-leave because of a sudden and fatal illness. The insurer and trial court penalized the employee for taking his paid holiday and sick-leave. They docked him the life insurance proceeds for which he had paid. The dispute centered around the policy’s “effective date of coverage” provision: whether being a full-time employee was enough to make the policy commence even if out for a sick-day. Or whether the employee had to be actively working in the employer’s building.
Recent verdicts from across the nation in disability, life and health insurance policy cases must be alarming for big corporate insurance companies. The trend is for jurors to award individual plaintiffs astronomical punitive damage verdicts, showing their general disdain for insurance companies and tendency to empathize with policyholders, particularly where a person’s health is at issue.
Echague v. Met Life: Equitable Surcharge is an Available Remedy Against Unresponsive Plan Administrators Under ERISAJune 26, 2014 Robert McKennon
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) seeks to protect participants in employer-sponsored plans, but lack of adequate communication and transparency is an often an unfortunate byproduct of the insurance industry. The California district court shed light on this issue in Echague v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68642 (N.D. Cal. May 19, 2014) by holding an insurer breaches its fiduciary duty when providing insufficient responses and the insured may be entitled to equitable surcharge. Echague is highly beneficial to insureds and beneficiaries, as it warns plan fiduciaries (such as insurers and plan administrators/employers) to think twice before ignoring requests for information, giving incorrect information, or neglecting to provide updates regarding the policies they administer, as their inactions or providing of incorrect information about the plan may open them up to equitable remedies such as equitable surcharge which would allow plan participants to recover the full value of the plan benefits in dispute.
The McKennon Law Group PC periodically publishes articles on its California Insurance Litigation Blog that deal with frequently asked questions in the insurance bad faith, life insurance, long term disability insurance, annuities, accidental death insurance and ERISA areas of the law. This article in that series focuses on appealing a denial of your long term disability insurance claim for long term disability insurance benefits under ERISA.
The short answer is “Absolutely.”
Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones last week announced that Governor Jerry Brown has signed AB 1747, authored by Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles). The bill was strongly supported by Commissioner Jones and the California Department of Insurance and provides important consumer safeguards for life insurance policyholders. AB 1747, which will be effective January 1, 2013, adds new Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 to the Insurance Code and will apply to every individual and group life insurance policy issued or delivered in California after January 1, 2013.
AB 1747 will require that every life insurance policy issued or delivered in this state contain a provision for a grace period of not less than 60 days from the premium due date and that the policy remains in force during the 60-day grace period. The law will also require an insurer to give the applicant for an individual life insurance policy the right to designate at least one person, in addition to the applicant, to receive notice of lapse or termination of a policy for nonpayment of premium. The law will require an insurer to provide each applicant with a form, as specified, to make the designation and to notify the policy owner annually of the right to change the designation. The law will also prohibit a notice of pending lapse and termination from being effective unless mailed by the insurer to the named policy owner, a named designee for an individual life insurance policy, and a known assignee or other person having an interest in the individual life insurance policy at least 30 days prior to the effective date of termination if termination is for nonpayment of premium.
MetLife Pays $40 Million To Settle Allegations That It Failed To Properly Identify And Pay Life Insurance BeneficiariesMay 17, 2012 Robert McKennon
The California Department of Insurance, along with five other state insurance departments, reached a settlement with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Inc. (“MetLife”) over allegations that the company failed to properly utilize the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File database to identify deceased life insurance policyholders and pay their beneficiaries. In addition to promising to enact business reforms to ensure that it promptly pays life insurance benefits to the proper beneficiaries, MetLife will pay $40 million to the state insurance departments.
McKennon Law Group Founding Partner Robert McKennon Featured in January 2012 Issue of Forbes MagazineFebruary 09, 2012 Robert McKennon
Los Angeles – Noted Southern California insurance and business litigator Robert J. McKennon was featured in the “Southern California Legal Profiles” section of the January 2012 issue of Forbes Magazine in an article highlighting his experience as a top Southern California insurance and business litigation attorney.
California Courts Deal Another Blow To Plaintiffs' Efforts To Bring Class Actions Based on Insurer and Agents MisrepresentationsJuly 28, 2011 Robert McKennon
The California Court of Appeals for the Second District has upheld a trial court finding that may effectively limit and discourage attorneys from filing class actions based on misrepresentations in the sale of insurance policies through agents. In Fairbanks et al. v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. et al., __ Cal. App. 3d __ (2011), the court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of class certification on the basis that common issues did not prevail, and that the issue was incapable of common proof. The case involved Farmers’ marketing and sale of universal life insurance policies. It was alleged that Farmers created a common marketing strategy with respect to the marketing and sale of such policies, and that Farmers instructed its agents to implement such strategy by using Farmers’ marketing materials in the agents’ sales pitch to prospective customers. After a lengthy discussion of the types of life insurance policies at issue, the appellate court focused on the actual narrow bases on which Plaintiffs sought relief, which was based on a single unified theory relating to fraudulent misrepresentations and concealments made by agents during the marketing of the policies to the individual prospective customers. The court determined that the bases for class certification “were not four separate bases for class relief, but part of one overarching allegedly fraudulent scheme.” The court noted, “Plaintiffs argued that proof of this fraudulent scheme could be established by common, rather than individual, proof, based on a combination of common policy language, common language in annual policyholder statements, and a common marketing scheme.” Plaintiffs sought to certify a class based on very broad conduct involving myriad misrepresentations made in written marketing materials as well as alleged misrepresentations by Farmers’ agents. Farmers argued that plaintiffs’ broad theory could not sustain a certifiable class in that it would require independent proof as to each policyholder. Specifically, it would require proof as to the individual representations made to each policyholder, and the materiality of such representations as to each policyholder.
On April 25, 2011, California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and California State Controller John Chiang announced that they are investigating Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) for a failure to pay out life insurance benefits after learning of an insured’s death. It appears that while MetLife learned of its insured’s deaths through a database prepared by the Social Security Administration called “Death Master,” which lists all Americans who die, MetLife failed to use this information to pay legitimate claims.
As noted in the California Department of Insurance’s Press Release:
The Commissioner and the Controller are responding to preliminary findings from an audit the Controller launched in 2008, indicating that for two decades, MetLife failed to pay life insurance policy benefits to named beneficiaries or the State even after learning that an insured had died. The company has a huge number of so-called Industrial Policies, valued at an estimated $1.2 billion, which were primarily sold in the 1940s and 1950s to working-class people. The payments, which were collected weekly, typically were higher than the final death benefit. The Controller’s unclaimed property audit indicates that MetLife did not take steps to determine whether policy owners of dormant accounts are still alive, and if not, pay the beneficiaries, or the State if they cannot be located.
In addition, the preliminary findings revealed that MetLife may have similarly failed to contact the owners of annuity contracts:
Simultaneously, the preliminary findings show, when MetLife knew that an owner of an annuity contract – which generates income for the policy owner at the time the annuity matures – had died, or the annuity had matured, the company did not contact the policy holder or beneficiary, even though it subscribed to the “Death Master” database. Furthermore, MetLife continued making premium payments from the policy holder’s account until the cash reserves were used up, and then cancelled the contract.
While Monday’s press release was limited to the State’s investigation of MetLife, both the “Commissioner and Controller believe that these practices are not isolated, but are systemic in the insurance industry.”
If you believe you have a life insurance policy or annuity issued by MetLife, or any other insurer, for which you have failed to properly receive life insurance benefits, contact McKennon Law Group PC for a free consultation.