• David Martin

Do COBRAs Always Strike?

Cobras are known to be deadly, but truth be told, they don’t always strike - even when provoked. COBRA here refers to the law that requires employers to offer an employee the option to continue health insurance coverage at a little more than the group health insurance rate for a period of time after termination of employment.

Even under Obamacare, keeping your health insurance can be very important. For employers with 20 or more full time employees, the law requires the employer to give each participant a notice of health insurance coverage rights upon a qualifying event. Termination of employment, other than for gross misconduct, is a common qualifying event. Failure to give that notice in a timely manner can subject to the plan administrator of the health plan to a statutory penalty claim of up to $110 per day. Over time, those penalties can amount to a deadly bite. The case law further makes it clear that prejudice to the former employee is not required in order for a penalty to be levied against the plan administrator. Seems like a “snake” you don’t want to provoke!

However, in Sanders v. Temenos USA, Inc., the COBRA did not strike at all, as the court ruled that a penalty would not be levied. In this case, the Court had discretion as to whether to assess a penalty and found the civil penalty would not serve any purpose of the statute. The court held:

“It is undisputed that Temenos provided Sanders with free health insurance for over ten months — ranging from the time of his termination to July 1, 2014. To begin with, the record evidence shows that had Sanders elected COBRA coverage, the total amount in premiums he would have paid over the relevant time period would have exceeded $20,000. As such, Sanders' claimed $4,000 in uncovered medical expenses since his termination is ‘far outweigh[ed]’ by the benefit of having received free health care coverage — that is, not having paid in excess of $20,000 in premiums over the same time period. Id. at *7. It logically follows that Sanders suffered no real prejudice as a result of Temenos's COBRA violation.” (Emphasis added.)

This all means that the Court found Sanders lacked prejudice, and there was no bad faith by Temenos. Despite the clarity of the violation, the COBRA went away without striking here.

For a case going the other way with a few different facts, see, Wright v. Hanna Steel Corp., 270 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2001).

#COBRALawyers #COBRA #ERISA #ERISAdisabilitylawyer

Contact us today for a free initial consultation.

The Martin Law Group is dedicated to being your go-to ERISA attorneys and long term disability lawyers. Whether you are pursuing a long-term disability claim, life insurance benefits, or your pension or retirement benefits, we will meet with you face-to-face to discuss your claim at a location convenient for you. 


In an effort to make disability claims as easy as possible, we offer a free initial consultation. We often work with clients in Huntsville, Mobile, Birmingham, Montgomery, Dothan, Tuscaloosa, and Florence, in Alabama, as well as with clients in Columbus, Meridian, Jackson, Hattiesburg, Tupelo, and Gulfport, Mississippi, and surrounding areas.

Contact us today for a free consultation.

Long term disability attorney
Long term disability lawyer alabama

Tuscaloosa Office

2117 Jack Warner Pkwy
Suite #1
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
Toll-Free: 800-284-9309
Local: 205-343-1771

Birmingham Office

The WSK Building
2323 2nd Avenue North
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Toll-Free: 800-284-9309
Local: 205-343-1771
  • Long term disability lawyer
  • ERISA disability lawyer
  • Retirement benefits lawyer

© 2020 by The Martin Law Group, LLC

Sitemap | Legal Disclaimers | Privacy Policy

Website proudly created by Cartography Consulting.

DISCLAIMER: The information presented on this website should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Therefore, no information of any kind that you provide us before such a relationship is created is confidential or privileged.

Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.