10th Circuit Court of Appeals validates MetLife’s accidental death and dismemberment denial

Verla Hancock participated in a group benefit plan sponsored by her employer, Intermountain Healthcare. The plan’s claim fiduciary was Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife). Under the plan, Verla obtained basic life insurance, supplemental life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment coverage (AD & D).

The plan stipulated that in order to benefit from the AD & D coverage, the policy holder had to be:

  1. Injured in an accident;
  2. The accident had to be the sole cause of injury;
  3. The accident had to be the sole cause of death;
  4. The death had to occur within 365 days of the accident.

The District Court found that policy beneficiary Terri Hancock had failed to demonstrate that she had a claim against MetLife for accidental death and dismemberment in her mother’s death.

Would Terri Hancock’s appeal be successful? Let’s look at the facts surrounding Verla Hancock’s death.

On November 18, 2004, Terri became concerned because she hadn’t heard from her mother for several days. When she went by her mother’s home to check on her, she found her sprawled on the floor of the bathroom. It was apparent that she had been dead for several days.

Because the police found eight different prescription drugs in the home, including a bottle of OxyContin by her body, and she had previously overdosed on OxyContin and Lortab in August 2003, the medical examiner suspected an overdose of OxyContin. But the coroner’s exam showed no evidence of excess Oxycontin or any other intoxicant. The examiner could find no other explanation for her death either. The death certificate stated that the cause of death was undetermined.

As Verla Hancock’s beneficiary, Terri Hancock applied to MetLife for the life insurance and AD & D benefits on January 20, 2005. MetLife approved the life insurance claims under both the basic and optional coverage portions of the plan, but it denied accidental death and dismemberment benefits. MetLife explained in their denial letter of March 22 that because the coroner had been unable to establish that the death was caused accidentally, Ms. Hancock was ineligible for the accidental death and dismemberment benefits.

Ms. Hancock appealed on May 19 providing both her own observations of the death scene, and the observations of the investigating detective, who had concluded that her mother had slipped, fallen and struck her head hard enough to render her unconscious, but not hard enough to fracture her skull. The medical examiner felt that this was a plausible explanation of what had happened.

MetLife responded by September 1, saying that her evidence added up to mere conjecture. For this reason, they reiterated that the evidence did not prove that her mother’s death had been caused by an accident. They denied her appeal.

When Ms. Hancock appealed again on February 6, 2006, she did so under advisement of counsel. This time she submitted copies of the police report, police photographs of the scene, autopsy documents and an investigative report prepared by MRA Forensic Sciences. While MetLife agreed to conduct another administrative review, they had not reached a decision by June 27. Her counsel advised MetLife that if they did not pay AD & D benefits within 10 days, Hancock would sue. She finally did so on September 12 in Utah state court. She received a letter next day reaffirming denial of the AD & D benefits.

Her case was removed from state court to federal court on December 10, 2007, where Hancock moved for partial summary judgment on the standard of review. She claimed that the court should review MetLife’s denial of benefits de novo, citing Utah Insurance Rule 590-218 as depriving MetLife of discretionary authority, and its right to judicial deference.

MetLife in response moved for a bench trial on the papers on February 8, 2008. MetLife argued that its decision was reasonable and that it was supported by substantial evidence.

Hancock then moved for summary judgment about two weeks later. She described MetLife’s denial of benefits as an “attempt to invoke the policy exclusion, presumably that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim.” She argued that MetLife should have the burden of establishing the factual basis for excluding her receipt of benefits. And she accused MetLife of having a conflict of interest and using irregular procedures in handling her claim.

The District Court found that ERISA preempted rule 590-218, which meant that MetLife was entitled to review under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. The court disagreed that it was MetLife’s responsibility to prove her entitlement to the benefits. So as a result, the District Court dismissed Hancock’s claims and upheld MetLife’s decision to deny accidental death and dismemberment benefits.

In her case before the United States Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, Hancock raised two issues:

  1. Was MetLife entitled to deferential review?
  2. Would MetLife’s decision survive a de novo review?

The first question before the court was to determine whether MetLife had discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to interpret the terms of the plan. In the plan provisions, MetLife clearly had discretionary authority. Unless procedural irregularities could be demonstrated, the proper standard of review would be the arbitrary and capricious standard. Because ERISA preempted state law upon review of the law in question, this would be the only grounds upon which Hancock would be able to secure a de novo review.

Hancock claimed that MetLife’s denial letters failed to include information required by ERISA regulations. When the Court reviewed the denial letters, they disagreed. They found the denial letter explained that both the death certificate and the autopsy report stated that the cause of death was undetermined. As a result, accidental death had not been established. The letter gave her specific instructions on how to enable MetLife to give her “appeal proper consideration.” It described exactly what information Hancock needed to provide in order to perfect her claim. They made it clear that she had to supply evidence that an accidental death had occurred as required by the AD & D provision.

She also claimed that MetLife did not provide a full and fair review of her appeal. She claimed that MetLife ignored her evidence, including the forensic expert’s opinion, and failed to conduct an independent investigation into her mother’s death. MetLife’s agreed that it had rejected the detective’s discussion with Hancock as mere conjecture. As the detective had deferred judgment on the cause of death to the medical examiner, when the examiner did not change the death certificate, MetLife continued to consider the discussion conjecture.

The forensic expert’s opinion, while suggesting a high probability that a slip-and-fall accident could have caused the senior Hancock’s death, it too, only amounted to conjecture. MetLife maintained its position that none of the evidence proved death by accident.

The court’s conclusion

After reviewing all the correspondence between MetLife and Hancock, the Court found that MetLife had given Hancock a full and fair review. There was no proof that MetLife had ignored her evidence. And the court found it reasonable for MetLife to seek more conclusive evidence before paying accidental death and dismemberment benefits.

The court also found it unreasonable to expect MetLife to conduct an independent investigation when police records demonstrated that a proper investigation had already occurred. The court found no serious conflict of interest could be demonstrated. Ultimately, based on the government reports and Hancock’s own submissions, the court felt that MetLife had been reasonable in concluding that she had not proven her mother’s death was accidental.

In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Hancock will not receive an accidental death and dismemberment payout from her mother’s policy.

Comments (8)

  • Mike,

    First and foremost, what type of policy is the claim under? Life Insurance or Accidental Death and Dismemberment? We would need to see a copy of the denial letters, any appeal and the policy. Please feel free to contact our office with same and we will review to determine how we may be able to assist you.

    Stephen Jessup May 6, 2015  #8

  • All of the information and comments here are very telling and sound very similar to what we just went thru with Met Life. My 92 year old father died last October and the medical examiner ruled that the death was caused by an accidental fall which caused a fractured hip.

    We sent the medical records that Met Life required and they denied the claim primarily because he was 92 and had other medical issues that “could have contributed” to his death, therefore the accident was not the sole cause of death.

    I did research and wrote a more detailed and informed letter to them, basically stating that what 92 year old man would have nothing else wrong with him? The fact is the fall caused the accelerated decline and death of my father. Hanging their hat on “sole cause” just does not seem reasonable. His doctor and the attending medical examiner basically affirmed this and said that over 70% of people over 85 years of age do not recover from a fractured hip. However, Met Life again declined and now say if I want to pursue this further I must take them to court.

    Would be interested in any and all feedback.

    Thank you……

    Mike Upp May 5, 2015  #7

  • An accidental overdose is just that, an accidental overdose. It should be paid out. We buy the policies pay our premiums and get these policies so our families have a little cushion during difficult times. Regardless if it was an overdose sometimes people who are on narcotics forget they have taken one or the pain is just not going away. So they take another. Other ones like the Fentanyl patch that says may cause death right on the box should not even be prescribed at all, along with roxis and percocets, all of these drugs together taken the right way can still cause a accidental death. And that should be paid out. Or what do we do sue the doctors for putting our spouses on so much medication? My husband died in April, of an accidental overdose using those stupid fentanyl patches he didn’t abuse his medication, he was a doctor himself. I still haven’t gotten the results back I hired an attorney to take care of everything.

    Insurance companies shouldn’t sell accidental insurance policies if they don’t want to pay out when a person dies. That is just the stupidest thing. They want that residual income every month but don’t want to pay it out when it’s needed. Accidental is accidental, the ME knows more than the insurance company and the insurance companies need to go by what the ME says. No arguing. Theres a difference if there were 60 narco pills in their stomach and patches all over their body wanting to die, but when taken correctly it should be clear it was an accident, or another pill mixed with it caused the death.

    I’m interested to see what my insurance company does when we get the final report.

    I hope and pray it goes in my favor to help with his boys and their futures. I hope and pray for all of you who have lost loved ones that things will go in your favor as well and that you can find some comfort and closure, I know I’m still waiting for mine, it’s keeping this chapter open which is difficult.

    Holly Jul 15, 2014  #6

  • Alysia,

    In many cases if the cause of death can be directly tied to a medical condition, then it will not be deemed an “accident.” This can include overdoses of prescribed or unprescribed medication. In many policies, accidents are defined to mean an accident in the sense of a car accident, a fall, or some other randomly occurring catastrophic event. Please feel free to contact our office to see if there is something that we can potentially do to assist you.

    Stephen Jessup Oct 4, 2013  #5

  • My husband died on December 29th, 2012 and was deemed an accident by the coroner on the death certificate after an autopsy and toxicology exam. MetLife denied my PAI coverage for him stating he died from “mental illness” due to antidepressants he was prescribed.

    Alysia Krummen Oct 3, 2013  #4

  • Kim,

    I am sorry to hear about the death of your sister. MetLife may be wrong in the denial of your sister’s claim. We would be interested to review the denial letter and policy in order to determine if we can assist your family with a claim against MetLife. Contact us for a free consultation.

    Gregory Dell Oct 12, 2011  #3

  • I agree, just receiving today, that my sister’s children have been denied by MetLife for accidental death benefits. My sister suffered a stroke five years ago and suffered from memory loss. She was found dead in her apartment bathroom floor on 4/21/2011. Her death certificate does say accidental, from overdose of anti-depressants. Yet they have been denied the accidental benefits also.

    Kim Niehe Oct 11, 2011  #2

  • I think this is awful, they just denied my husband’s accidental death claim from accidental drug overdose. MetLife denied the claim this morning, he died on Nov. 11, 2010.

    Sherri Keneda May 20, 2011  #1

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

Do you help MetLife claimants nationwide?

We represent MetLife clients nationwide and we encourage you to contact us for a FREE immediate phone consultation with one of our experienced disability insurance attorneys.

Can you help with a MetLife disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from MetLife. We have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants nationwide with monthly disability benefits. With more than 40 years of disability insurance experience we have helped individuals in almost every occupation and we are familiar with the disability income policies offered by MetLife.

How do you help MetLife claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a MetLife long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer.

Our experienced lawyers can assist with MetLife:

  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Appeals of Disability Benefit Denials
  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Disability Benefit Lawsuits
  • Applying For Short or Long Term Disability Benefits
  • Daily Handling & Management of Your Disability Claim
  • Disability Insurance Lump-Sum Buyout or Settlement Negotiations

Do you work in my state?

Yes. We are a national disability insurance law firm that is available to represent you regardless of where you live in the United States. We have partner lawyers in every state and we have filed lawsuits in most federal courts nationwide. Our disability lawyers represent disability claimants at all stages of a claim for disability insurance benefits. There is nothing that our lawyers have not seen in the disability insurance world.

What are your fees?

Since we represent disability insurance claimants at different stages of a disability insurance claim we offer a variety of different fee options. We understand that claimants living on disability insurance benefits have a limited source of income; therefore we always try to work with the claimant to make our attorney fees as affordable as possible.

The three available fee options are a contingency fee agreement (no attorney fee or cost unless we make a recovery), hourly fee or fixed flat rate.

In every case we provide each client with a written fee agreement detailing the terms and conditions. We always offer a free initial phone consultation and we appreciate the opportunity to work with you in obtaining payment of your disability insurance benefits.

Do I have to come to your office to work with your law firm?

No. For purposes of efficiency and to reduce expenses for our clients we have found that 99% of our clients prefer to communicate via telephone, e-mail, fax, GoToMeeting.com sessions, or Skype. If you prefer an initial in-person meeting please let us know. A disability company will never require you to come to their office and similarly we are set up so that we handle your entire claim without the need for you to come to our office.

How can I contact you?

When you call us during normal business hours you will immediately speak with a disability attorney. We can be reached at 800-682-8331 or by email. Lawyer and staff must return all client calls same day. Client emails are usually replied to within the same business day and seem to be the preferred and most efficient method of communication for most clients.

Dell & Schaefer Client Reviews   *****

O. Lee

My experience with Dell & Schaefer has and continues to be, outstanding. First, I would personally like to thank Cesar for his experience and expertise in handling my case in addition to his wonderful “legal – eagle” assistant Michal. All communication was handled as though he was across the table from me as he was consistently available whenever I needed him to explain the process and steps regarding the awarding of my LTD benefits that were denied after my in-house appeal.

He was ON MY SIDE the entire time and believed in my case from the beginning and fought for it. I am extremely happy and satisfied with the outcome and if it weren’t for him and his team’s efforts, persistence and preservation, I would have given up. Please do not engage in a LTD denial alone without contacting this firm. They will not sugarcoat anything and they are honest and their integrity is impeccable. You are not alone. They are here for you and I am so glad I made the phone call. Again my deepest thanks to Cesar. You and the Dell & Schaefer team have unlocked the bars of cage I thought I was in.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

Request a free legal consultation: Call 800-682-8331 or Email Us