{"id":7474,"date":"2020-04-07T16:19:32","date_gmt":"2020-04-07T21:19:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/?p=7474"},"modified":"2024-01-04T17:38:19","modified_gmt":"2024-01-04T22:38:19","slug":"faciane-v-sun-life-court-rules-in-favor-of-sun-life-in-underpayment-suit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/faciane-v-sun-life-court-rules-in-favor-of-sun-life-in-underpayment-suit\/","title":{"rendered":"Faciane v. Sun Life – Court Rules In Favor of Sun Life In Underpayment Suit"},"content":{"rendered":"
In Faciane vs.\u00a0Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada<\/a>, the claimant received a monthly benefit for long term disability<\/a> benefits pursuant to an ERISA-regulated<\/a> group insurance policy. The group policy covered employees of Capital One Financial Corporation. He alleged that Sun Life had been underpaying him for years. The material facts of the case were not in dispute. Mr. Faciane had been receiving a minimum benefit of $100 since December 1, 2006. In a March 31, 2008 letter to Faciane, Sun Life explained to the claimant how it had calculated his benefit amount. At some point in time, Faciane realized that his benefits may have been underpaid.<\/p>\n However, Faciane did not challenge Sun Life\u2019s March 2008 calculation until June 26, 2017 \u2013 almost 10 years later!<\/strong><\/p>\n After his administrative appeal with Sun Life was denied, Faciane filed a lawsuit against Sun Life seeking a higher monthly benefit. Unfortunately, Faciane offered no explanation either in his complaint or in his filings with the Court as to why the information available to him in 2008 was insufficient to put him on notice of an alleged major miscalculation and underpayment of LTD benefits.<\/p>\n Time Limit to File a Lawsuit Under the Policy<\/strong><\/u><\/p>\n The long term disability insurance policy provides, in a subsection titled \u201cLegal Proceedings\u201d:<\/p>\n \u201cNo legal action may start:<\/p>\n 1. until 60 days after Proof of Claim has been given; nor<\/p>\n 2. more than 3 years after the time Proof of Claim is required.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Based on his date of disability, Mr. Faciane\u2019s \u201cProof of Claim\u201d was required by early March 2007. Therefore, the policy\u2019s bar on the start of a lawsuit \u201cmore than 3 years after the time Proof of Claim is required\u201d took effect in early March 2010\u2014years before Faciane initiated his case.<\/p>\n The Court\u2019s Evaluation of Sun Life\u2019s Argument That the Claim Should be Dismissed Due to Untimeliness<\/strong><\/u><\/p>\n