Seattle, WA
Insurance Lawyer at Seattle, WA
Practice Areas: Insurance
OUTCOME: Judgment entered against Sedgwick Claims Management Services
Court determined Sedgwick improperly denied short-term disability benefits and ordered the benefits to be paid.
OUTCOME: Judgment against Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston
Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (LLACOB) denied long-term disability benefits to claimant. Civil action against LLACOB to recover those benefits; Court awarded full benefits to claimant.
OUTCOME: Judgment entered against Prudential Insurance Company
Prudential Insurance Company denied claimant short-term and long-term disability benefits. Civil action in federal court resulting in award of full benefits to claimant.
OUTCOME: Judgment against Unum
ERISA disability insurer wrongfully took offset from insured person's disability benefits
OUTCOME: Judgment against Hartford
Disabled beneficiary has right to maintain ERISA lawsuit to clarify right to future benefits.
OUTCOME: Settlement for $645,000.00
"Bad faith" case against an Insurance company which mistreated its insured, who had been injured in a car accident. Insurer made "lowball" offers to injured person, refused to make reasonable settlemen ... t offer until suit filed against insurer under Washington's Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Settlement for $645,000.00.
OUTCOME: Court entered judgment in favor of all workers.
Represented 26 workers terminated without prior 60-day notice as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notice Act ("the WARN Act"). After a bench trial, judgment in favor of all workers.
OUTCOME: Ninth Circuit held short-term disability benefits are wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by Honeywell, Inc., which provided short-term disability benefits under a "salary continuation" program exempted from ERISA, and long-term disability benefits under an ERISA- ... governed plan administered by MetLife. The Plaintiff became disabled, but MetLife denied her claim for short-term disability benefits and as a result she was unable to apply for long-term disability benefits. Honeywell and MetLife sought dismissal of the Plaintiff's case, arguing that they had no obligation to provide short-term disability benefits because the Plaintiff gave nothing in exchange for that benefit. The district court granted the motion, but was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that Honeywell owed a contractual duty to the Plaintiff to apply the short-term disability program in compliance with the requirements and procedures outlined in materials it provided to her, that she stated a claim of disability discrimination against Honeywell, and that any short-term disability benefits were properly characterized as wages under Washington law.
OUTCOME: Court ordered de novo review of ERISA case
The Plaintiff developed chronic fatigue syndrome. He applied for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA long-term disability insurance plan administered by the Hartford Life Insurance Company. ... Hartford denied the claim. The Plaintiff sued, and Hartford responded that any judicial review of the Plaintiff's claim was limited to review for "abuse of discretion." The Plaintiff moved for an order of summary judgment holding that review should be under the far more thorough "de novo" standard, because Hartford had a conflict of interest, as it was both the decision-maker with respect to the Plaintiff's claim, and the party that had to pay the Plaintiff benefits. The federal court agreed, stating that "Hartford's conduct, when viewed as a whole, exhibits an adversarial attitude toward plaintiff with the intent of denying his claims." The court therefore ordered that trial would be conducted under the "de novo" standard of review.
OUTCOME: Plaintiff recovered all LTD benefits owing to her
Judgment against Aetna Life Insurance Company
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
