McKean Evans

Deadlines in Policy Fine Print Can’t Cut off IFCA Rights Says Court of Appeals

Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA) protects policyholders from insurers’ unreasonable refusal to pay covered losses or provide insurance policy benefits. Unfortunately, many insurers include fine print in the insurance policy contract that supposedly provides the policyholder cannot sue the insurer once certain time period has passed since the loss. These time periods are typically much, much shorter than statutes of limitations, and are often as short as one year.

Insurers often claim this language lets them off the hook for violating policyholders’ rights under IFCA or other laws once enough time has passed. This is particularly problematic because insurers often drag out disputed insurance claims for as long as possible. Accepting these insurers’ arguments would allow insurers to immunize themselves from suit by simply stalling until the deadline runs.

Can they do that?

Fortunately for Washington State policyholders, our Court of Appeals recently said “no way.” On January 13, 2020, the Court of Appeals decided West Beach Condominium v. Commonwealth Insurance Company of America, ruling that the deadline in the insurer’s fine print could not bar the policyholder from pursuing IFCA and similar consumer protection claims.

West Beach, a West Seattle condo owners’ association, had insurance coverage for the condo complex through Commonwealth Insurance. West Beach found substantial water damage in the condo complex and made an insurance claim with Commonwealth on September 26, 2016.

In March of 2017, Commonwealth denied coverage. Commonwealth claimed that the water damage had been happening for the past ten years. Commonwealth’s insurance policy contained fine print requiring West Beach to sue within a year after the loss, i.e., within a year after the initial water damage.

West Beach sued, alleging that Commonwealth breached the insurance policy contract. West Beach also sued under IFCA and Washington’s Consumer Protection ACT (CPA). The lower court dismissed the entire lawsuit because the claimed damage occurred more than one year before West Beach filed suit.

The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered that the lower court should not have dismissed the IFCA and CPA claims. Commonwealth claimed on appeal that by failing to file suit by the contractual deadline, West Beach gave up its right to any insurance coverage. Therefore, Commonwealth argued, West Beach had no right to bring IFCA or CPA claims because it had given up its insurance coverage.

The Court of Appeals determined the suit limitation clause only prevented West Beach from filing a very specific type of claim for breach of the insurance policy contract. But, the court ruled, Commonwealth could not use the contractual deadline to immunize itself from suit under IFCA and the CPA. These statutes give policyholders rights that do not go away merely because the policyholder missed a deadline buried in the insurance policy.

The West Beach decision is important because it preserves policyholders’ rights under Washington’s consumer protection statutes. These laws exist to protect Washington policyholders from sharp practices. Allowing insurers to exempt themselves from these laws simply by adding arbitrary deadlines to their insurance policy fine print would allow insurers to circumvent these protections by using the very type of sharp practice these laws exist to prevent.

ERISA Insurer’s Hiding Doctor’s Opinions Results in Appellate Win for Claimant

On December 11, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Washington and other coastal and western states) decided Wagenstein v. Cigna Life Insurance Company. The decision is unpublished, meaning it is not binding on lower courts but may still be used as persuasive authority.

Lea Wagenstein sued to challenge Cigna’s termination of her long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed insurance policy. The district court dismissed Wagenstein’s case, agreeing with Cigna’s decision to terminate benefits.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. The court emphasized that even Cigna’s own consultant, hired to examine Wagenstein at Cigna’s behest, determined Wagenstein’s disability precluded her from sitting more than 2.5 hours per day. As such, the Ninth Circuit noted that report showed Wagenstein could not perform sedentary work requiring sitting for most of an 8 hour workday.

The Ninth Circuit noted Cigna possessed a report from another consultant, hired by Cigna, who determined Wagenstein could actually sit for a full workday and thus could perform two sedentary jobs. Cigna relied on this report in concluding Wagenstein was not disabled. But Cigna hid the report from Wagenstein until Cigna’s final denial of her appeal of the termination of her benefits. That deprived Wagenstein of the opportunity to provide a response from her treating physicians, who agreed Wagenstein was disabled. Failing to provide Wagenstein the report violated ERISA’s rules requiring full and fair review of claims.

Because Cigna violated ERISA by withholding its physician’s report, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the lower court with instructions to allow Wagenstein to submit statements from her doctors rebutting Cigna’s consultant in determining whether Wagenstein remained entitled to disability insurance benefits.

The Wagenstein decision, while not binding precedent, remains an important reminder that, where the insurer relies on consultants’ opinions in denying claims or terminating benefits, ERISA protects the claimant’s right to rebut the insurer’s evidence.

Insurance Company’s Duty to Reasonably Investigate Claims Under Washington law

The Washington State Association for Justice recently published McKean Evans’ article regarding insurers’ duty to reasonably investigate claims. The article, entitled Insurance Company’s Duty to Reasonably Investigate Your Client’s Claim a Powerful Tool for Making Client Whole, discusses the legal basis for insurers’ duty to reasonably investigate claims. Evans discusses how insurers’ breach of this duty is actionable and can be used to rebut typical insurer defense strategies in insurance bad faith litigation.

Among other things, the article explores:

How an insurer’s breach of its duty to investigate establishes liability in an insurance bad faith action;
The Washington Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Coventry Assocs. v. Am. States Ins. Co., 136 Wn. 2d 269, 276, 961 P.2d 933, 935 (1998), establishing that the duty to reasonably investigate claims is a fundamental part of the benefit the policyholder receives in exchange for their premiums;
How the duty to reasonably investigate requires an insurer to base its coverage decisions on “adequate information” and not “overemphasize its own interests;” consider new information the insured provides in response to the insurer’s denial of her claim; and reasonably consider a policyholder’s final coverage demand under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act;
Facts to look for in investigating an insurer’s bad faith that would help prove the insurer failed to reasonably investigate the claim.

Court Rejects ERISA Insurer’s Effort to Discredit Treating Physicians in Awarding Disability Benefits

A recent decision from federal court in Oregon is an interesting example of how ERISA disability benefit disputes can arise where the claimant suffers from complex and hard-to-diagnose conditions such as fibromyalgia. Since conditions like fibromyalgia defy easy identification, these cases often turn on the claimant’s treating doctor’s documentation of the claimant’s symptoms.

Jane Medefesser sued her LTD carrier, MetLife, after MetLife denied her disability insurance claim. Medefesser suffered from a host of medical conditions including fibromyalgia and migraines. Medefesser’s doctors opined her medical conditions impacted her ability to function even in a sedentary job.

MetLife initially approved Medefesser’s disability claim. But MetLife subsequently changed its position and terminated Medefesser’s benefits after an “independent” doctor hired by MetLife determined Medefesser could perform sedentary work. MetLife also relied on opinions from its physicians that Medefesser’s doctors were, supposedly, exaggerating Medefesser’s symptoms.

The court disagreed with MetLife that Medefesser’s doctors were exaggerating her symptoms. To the contrary, the court noted that, given the complexity of Medefesser’s condition, the treating doctors who personally examined Medefesser were in the best position to reliably assess her disability.

This ruling is notable because it addresses a common issue in ERISA disability cases involving conditions like migraines or fibromyalgia. Where the claimant’s disability arises from complex conditions that defy easy diagnosis, disability insurers have an incentive to rely on the supposed lack of “objective” findings or review by “independent” consultants. These consultants’ opinions typically boil down to: “if it doesn’t show up on an x-ray, it’s not real.” The Medefesser decision is a great example of a judge rejecting such an argument.

Ninth Circuit Emphasizes Importance of ERISA Claims-Handling Regulation in Reversing LTD Benefit Denial

ERISA-governed disability benefit claims are subject to the Department of Labor’s regulation requiring full and fair investigation of claims. The regulation includes rules requiring claims administrators apply plan provisions correctly and thoroughly investigate claims. A claims administrator’s failure to adhere to the rules expressed in the regulation can be the difference-maker if the benefit dispute proceeds to litigation. A recent unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Alves v. Hewlett-Packard Comprehensive Welfare Benefits Plan, emphasizes this.

Alves applied for short-term disability and long-term disability under his employee benefit plan. The plan’s claims administrator, Sedgwick, determined Alves’ condition did not render him disabled, i.e., that Alves could still perform his job duties. On that basis, Sedgwick denied both the short- and long-term disability claims. The federal district court agreed with Sedgwick.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Sedgwick’s decision Alves didn’t qualify for short-term disability benefits was adequately supported by Alves’ medical information. But the court found Sedgwick incorrectly evaluated Alves’ long-term disability claim. Sedgwick denied Alves’ long-term disability claim because Sedgwick concluded Alves failed to meet the plan’s one-week waiting period. The court concluded Alves’ clearly met this requirement. Accordingly, the court remanded Alves’ long-term disability claim to Sedgwick for further investigation. The Ninth Circuit admonished Sedgwick to follow ERISA’s rules requiring full and fair investigation of claims in reviewing Alves’ long-term disability clam on remand.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is unpublished, meaning it is only persuasive precedent. Lower courts may follow this decision if they find it persuasive, but they are not required to.

The Alves decision is an important reminder that ERISA claims administrators can be held accountable for failing to correctly apply plan provisions and failing to investigate claims in compliance with ERISA’s implementing regulation.