• David Martin

Stuck in the Middle With Your LTD Claim?


Ms. Wallace was a nurse who became disabled. She was covered by long term disability insurance through Hartford in 2012. The coverage was taken over in 2013 by Reliance Standard Insurance Life Insurance Company. Ms. Wallace quit working in 2012 due to her disability. Fighting her limitations, she tried to return to work in 2013. She simply couldn’t do it.


She filed a claim for long-term disability with Hartford, as that is when she originally quit working because of her disability. It denied the claim because she finally stopped working in 2013. Hartford put it on Reliance Standard. Reliance Standard denied the claim asserting that her disability was a pre-existing condition under its policy (a weak position as there is usually a takeover provision when an employer switches carriers).


Ms. Wallace found herself in the un-enviable position of being stuck between two insurers, both of whom had excuses from paying her claim. She appealed Hartford’s claim denial but did not appeal Reliance’s.


Cue up the Stealers Wheel song:

"Clowns to the left of me

Jokers to the right

Here I am stuck in the middle with you…"


Ms. Wallace sued Reliance Standard. Reliance Standard argued that Ms. Wallace failed to exhaust her claim remedies (it abandoned the pre-existing condition “defense”) thus her case was due to be dismissed. Counsel for Ms. Wallace had carefully reviewed the Reliance Standard plan document and it did not say anything at all about a claim process that Ms. Wallace was required to follow before she filed a lawsuit. Without a claim process in place what else could she have done?


The District Court agreed with Ms. Wallace and ruled against Reliance Standard and in favor of her long-term disability claim. Reliance Standard appealed to the 6th Circuit, brazenly arguing “… exhaustion is required whether or not it is explicitly stated in a plan document.” Wallace v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., No. 18-2316, at *6 (6th Cir. Mar. 31, 2020). “It’s my way or the highway.”


The 6th Circuit didn’t sing along:

“For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that, because Defendant did not describe any internal claims review process or remedies in its plan document, the plan did not establish a reasonable claims procedure pursuant to ERISA regulations; therefore, Plaintiff's administrative remedies must be deemed exhausted.” Id. at *6.


Now, seven years after Ms. Wallace asserted her disability claim, Reliance Standard must finally pay the claim. Reminds me of another song - Bruce Springsteen’s "Long Time Comin.'" If you ever wondered whether you need an experienced ERISA attorney to help with you with your claim, wonder no more.

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.

800-284-9309

info@erisacase.com

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: These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. 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.