Liberty Mutual

Diaz sought long-term disability (LTD) benefits for chronic neck and back pain, muscular spasms, and adjustment disorder following a work-related car accident, but Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston denied the claim for lack of sufficient supporting evidence. The court upheld the denial, finding Liberty reasonably discounted Diaz’s functional capacity evaluation and that the record …

None of Liberty’s arguments persuade the Court that denying long-term disability benefits to Ms. Rouleau is appropriate. The preponderance of the evidence – indeed, the great weight of the evidence – reflects that Ms. Rouleau remained “disabled” as the Policy defines it even after the expiration of the “own occupation” period and is therefore entitled to the long-term disability benefits she seeks.

Zaeske won reinstatement of his long-term disability (LTD) benefits at the trial court level after it found Liberty Life’s independent medical reviewers unreliable, but the Eighth Circuit reversed on appeal, ruling that those same physicians’ opinions were reasonable and that Liberty Life didn’t abuse its discretion in denying his claim. Case at a Glance Insurer …

In this case, the plaintiff noted that the Policy’s states that “‘Proof’ means the evidence in support of a claim for benefits and includes, but is not limited to, the following.” Plaintiff thus argued that, while objective medical evidence may be sufficient to support a disability claim, it was not necessary to do so.

Rose Bigham, a Security Technical Program Manager at Amazon, filed suit after Liberty Life terminated her long-term disability benefits despite diagnoses of fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and degenerative disc disease. The court found that medical evidence from her treating physicians clearly supported her inability to perform the cognitive and interpersonal demands of her occupation.

Because Liberty failed to consider the evidence of Plaintiff’s job description in its determination of Plaintiff’s occupation, ultimately leading to their denial of Plaintiff’s claim, Liberty abused its discretion under the policy and incorrectly denied Plaintiff’s claim. In assessing the appropriate remedy for the case, the Court saw no need to remand the case back to the administrator.

Kavanay worked as an Outside Claims Adjuster for Allstate, but Liberty Life evaluated his “own occupation” long-term disability (LTD) claim against the Dictionary of Occupational Titles description for a sedentary “Inside Claims Examiner” instead of his actual job duties. The court found this an abuse of discretion, ruling that while an insurer may look at …

The Court held, “The level of activity or the lack thereof that Mr. Khalil reported to Liberty in support of his claim of continued disability was undermined by the video evidence that Liberty collected during the three years of review.” The claimant’s claim was further undermined by the fact that his own treating physicians ultimately opined that he was not disabled. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Liberty’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The parties’ supplemental briefing clarifies that, as an initial matter, they dispute the applicable policy to Plaintiff’s disability claim. Defendant argues that the Los Alamos National Security, LLC (“LANS”) Group Disability Income Policy (“LANS Policy”) applies to Plaintiff’s disability claim. Plaintiff disagrees and maintains that a University of California (“UC”) Supplemental Disability Policy (“UC Policy”) applies.

A federal magistrate judge in Massachusetts found that Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (“Liberty Life”) deprived Bruce Tracia of a full and fair review of his long-term disability (LTD) claim, holding its denial arbitrary and capricious, but declined to award benefits outright and instead remanded the case to Liberty for further review with clear instructions …