This month’s Friday Five explores recent decisions tackling a myriad of issues, including: (1) whether reclassification of a claimant’s health status constitutes an adverse benefit.
In Gill v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219416 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020), a California federal court held that an ERISA claim administrator properly limited benefits.
Long-Term Care Insurance Market: Future Growth Strategies by Experts & Top Players
Genworth, John Hancock, Aviva, Allianz, Aegon, Dai-ichi, AXA, China Life, Prudential, Generali Italia, Unum Life, Sumitomo Life Insurance, Northwestern Mutual, CPIC, MassMutual, Omaha Mutual, New York Life, LTC Financial Solutions,
rmozMay 25, 2021
The research report provides vital insights regarding current dynamics of
Global Long-Term Care Insurance Market and predicts the changes in the market scenario over the forecast period 2021 to 2027. It shares detailed information regarding various driving factors and restricting factors influencing the growth trajectory of Global Long-Term Care Insurance Market during the forecast period. Research authors combine both quantitative and qualitative research to derive data regarding the growth rate of Global Long-Term Care Insurance Market.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
This month’s Friday Five discusses cases that address the meaning of “active, full-time employee,” whether remand is required where an improper standard of review was applied, the standard for capacity in reference to a dispute between beneficiaries to a life insurance policy, a successful claim that a “change in condition” warranted termination of benefits and when extra-record discovery may be appropriate to interpret a claimant’s “own occupation.”
1. What does “active, full-time employee” mean? The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s decision, which found that Reliance improperly denied plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits and ordered an award of benefits, attorney’s fees, and costs (instead of remanding). Notably, the merits below turned not on whether the plaintiff was disabled, but on whether he met the plan’s “active, Full-time Employee” requireme