Pennsylvania Pharmacy Owner Learns The Hard Way That Accuracy Is Everything When Applying for Disability Insurance Benefits

On January 28, 2011, the United Sated District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Michael S. v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, et. al. In addition, the plaintiff’s disability policy and FIO policy were rescinded negating Michael S.’s claims of “(1) violation of the Covenant of Good faith and fair Dealing (bad faith); (2) violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (3) breach of contract.” Further, the Court ordered Berkshire to refund the “premiums [Michael S.] paid under the Disability Policy and FIO Policy” and judgment was entered in favor of Berkshire Life Insurance Company.

Background of Michael S. and His Disability Lawyer’s Lawsuit against Berkshire Insurance

Michael S. is a licensed pharmacist. As sole owner of two pharmacies in Pennsylvania, Michael S. “sought treatment with … a licensed clinical social worker, reporting to her that he had been abusing opiates.” Having taken the opiates for some three months, Michael S. was diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder and began attending group therapy sessions to combat his abuse in May 2003. Michael S. did not go through a detoxification program nor did he seek other help for his condition. In 2005, Michael S. purchased a disability insurance policy from Berkshire in which he misrepresented his abuse problem by stating that he had not taken various drugs associated with a substance abuse diagnosis. Not admitting to previous substance abuse, Michael S. defended the omission by stating that his abuse had happened prior to the policy application from Berkshire. Wanting to keep his problem confidential, Michael S. kept his abuse to himself. Michael S. was issued his policy on February 5, 2005, and on January 13, 2007, Michael S. was a victim of an armed robbery during which he was shot in the hand. Hospitalized as result of his gunshot wound, Michael S. informed emergency doctors that he had “taken unprescribed narcotics in the past.” Afraid of a relapse in his abuse, Michael S. told doctors of his abuse problem and after treatment returned to work with limited hours. Claiming that “he suffered from extreme stress, fear and anxiety,” Michael S. hired two pharmacy assistants, and an armed security guard to protect himself, his employees and inventory, and discontinued Saturday store hours.” Michael S. also continued group and individual therapy to deal with his diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and added a Future Increase Option (FIO) to his disability coverage.

Michael S. Returns to Work Full Time, Voluntarily Forfeiting his Disability Benefits

After returning to work full time, Michael S. indicated that he was not disabled since he was working. Then in June 2007, one of Michael S.’s customers approached him from behind and said “stick ‘em up.” From that moment on, Michael S. said that he was unable to work. Michael S. immediately informed Berkshire of his intentions to file a disability claim, but did not provide the insurer with documentation to prove his disability until four months later after several failed attempts to procure that information from Michael S. by the insurer.

A Berkshire claims adjuster obtained Michael S.’s medical records on January 28, 2008 which documented that Michael S. had a history of opiate dependence, attachment disorders, and adjustment disorders. Other medical records from May 2007 indicated treatment for narcotics usage as far back as September 2002. With fifty-seven (57) individual and seventy-eight (78) group treatment sessions documented in his medical record, Michael S.’s honesty in his original application for Berkshire insurance was now in question, and the insurer was skeptical of the validity of its obligation to provide Michael S. with disability benefits under the terms of a policy purchased under questionable circumstances. As a result of these concerns, Michael S.’s policy was turned over to Berkshire’s legal department for evaluation.

On January 20, 2010, Michael S.’s attorney stepped in and claimed that Berkshire should honor Michael S.’s claim in that Michael S. had not intentionally deceived Berkshire and that Berkshire was acting “in bad faith by failing to provide a prompt claim investigation” in regard to Michael S.’s application for disability benefits. Berkshire claims that it is entitled to rescind Michael S.’s disability insurance policy as it was void since Michael S. had provided the insurance company with false, fraudulent, and bad faith information in his application. Ultimately, Michael S. and his attorney brought a lawsuit against Berkshire for breach of contract and bad faith based on a failure to pay disability insurance benefits under two individual disability policies. Berkshire, then, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and Michael S. filed a counter motion for partial summary judgment. The question before the Court in this lawsuit is whether or not Berkshire has an obligation to Michael S. to provide disability benefits in light of Michael S.’s less than honest information provided on his original insurance application.

Michael S. and his Attorney Admit Michael S. Inadvertently Provided Berkshire with False Information

Michael S. and his disability attorney admit that the information Michael S. provided the insurer was not accurate, but they also argue that Michael S. was not intentionally attempting to deceive the insurer.

Pennsylvania Court Rules on the Case

Michael S. defended his “no” responses to questions on his original disability application concerning drug abuse as he thought that since he had the problem under control it was not at issue. After lengthy argument back and forth between Michael S.’s disability attorney and the insurers’ legal team, the Court “found that [Michael S.] made material fraudulent misrepresentations in his application for disability income insurance policy,” and that “Berkshire is entitled to rescission of that policy,” as well as the Future Increase Option Policy that Michael S. had purchased in 2007. The lesson here is, always complete disability insurance applications with truthful responses.

DISABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY INFORMATION
Videos, Questions, Resolved Cases, Lawsuit Summaries & Company Reviews

disability insurance companies complaints

Leave a comment or ask us a question

FAQ

Do you help Berkshire claimants nationwide?

We represent Berkshire 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 Berkshire disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Berkshire. 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 Berkshire.

How do you help Berkshire claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Berkshire 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 Berkshire:

  • 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.

Reviews   *****

Regina W. (North Carolina)

First and foremost, I believe in letting others know about truthful and relevant experiences.

I was represented by Mr. Jay Symonds, Attorney. My team consisted of Mr. Symonds and Ms. Sonia Nogueira, Paralegal. I can say that these two are hands down a team to reckon with and I am eternally blessed they were assigned to my case. They both understand Client Customer Service, are compassionate, and being responsive to the client’s needs. Mr. Jay Symonds was well versed in matters as he has worked on both sides, defending and representing, when dealing with disability matters. Lastly and very important, Mr. Jay Symonds absolutely pays attention to details on your case.

I have had dealt with several Attorneys in my various matters and I believe and thru their ACTIONS of DOING, Mr. Symonds and Ms. Nogueira are the epitomai of what an Attorney and Paralegal team should represent. I never had to inquire about the status of my case, they always were on top of matters. They were both forthcoming, relevant, honest, and realistic in the facts, and what could be ultimately be achieved in my case.

What is most important, and unless you have experienced the bad and ugly in legal matters, you will not appreciate this firms work and work ethics. No one should have ever had to deal with matters like I have PRIOR to myself retaining this firm, however, life is not perfect.

All my dealings were via mail, phone calls, and emails and this made it very easy to communicate. This team was very well organized and proactive! This is absolutely KEY in handling ANY case!

It is about what can realistically be accomplished and achieved and resolution and not promises or false hopes in what could come of your case. I will say that what you as a client puts into your case is also very critical and relevant. Always be forthcoming, honest, and keep your Attorney team updated. It is a TEAM effort by all parties involved and my personal experience with this Mr. Jay Symonds and this firm was pleasant and successful.

Thank You both for all your efforts and determination to see my case to a successful resolution.

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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