Actuarial News - News, Actuary Wiki, SOA & CAS exam study materials and more

"We understand the difficult nature of the insurance commissioner's decision and the importance of obtaining some relief for those who were unjustly denied," said Mike Nelson, a partner at Nelson Tyler Langer. "However, there are simply too many inconsistencies and pitfalls in the current agreement. For this reason alone the commissioner should work for a more equitable agreement as Washington residents and disabled persons across the country deserve better."

Nelson Tyler Langer also critiqued UnumProvident's proposed $15 million penalty, noting that the fee is nominal in comparison to the billions of dollars in revenue the company earns each year. Additionally, the terms of the agreement leaves great room for UnumProvident to continue its unfair claims-handling process.

Among the flaws in the agreement is an overwhelming burden on claimants to prove disability, without requiring UnumProvident to disclose what additional information is needed to overturn earlier denials. According to Nelson, this results in a "blind uphill climb for policyholders," says Nelson.

Nelson also pointed out that the imbalanced review process, which incited scrutiny in the first place, is essentially the same despite the proposed agreement.

"For policyholders, this settlement is just another way to lose. One of the major problems found by the regulators looking at UnumProvident is the disability insurance carrier's reliance on its own paid and biased medical staff to interpret medical reports and make disability determinations," said Nelson. "Yet the agreement does nothing to address this issue. In fact, the agreement allows even more input from Unum's staff and hired physicians whose opinions are valued more than the policyholders' own physicians'."

Nelson Tyler Langer urged the insurance commissioner to insist that the agreement be substantially strengthened before accepting its terms, and that the OIC call for the following alterations:

-- A longer period for regulatory response and some opportunity for public response.

-- UnumProvident must be required to better disclose to consumers all of the information it requires to fairly assess their claims.

-- Claimants should be given access to expert counsel for their reassessment.

-- The agreement should include a reopening of all claims that were initially rejected and then forced to settle for meager amounts.

-- Redefine the "reassessment" to include a full appeal review process.

-- Provide for actual notice to the claimants whose claims were denied between 1997 and 1999.

-- Preserve all state claims and remedies for Unum's abuse.

-- The state insurance commissioner should monitor the reassessment

process to ensure an impartial management of the reassessment, instead of leaving all the decision-making to the initial perpetrators, which prompted the regulatory review in the first instance.

"It's not enough for Unum to divert criticism and retribution by proposing a weak settlement," Nelson said. "The OIC should hold UnumProvident and all insurance companies responsible for how they handle claims, and make sure that policyholders get the consideration and compensation they deserve."