Bad faith is a term used for a state law claim against an insurance company based on the company’s conduct in handling a claim for benefits. Bad faith laws apply if ERISA does not, as ERISA supersedes any and all State laws that relate to employee benefit plans, which includes most bad faith laws.

Florida’s bad faith law is codified in Section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Florida’s bad faith law allows for the recovery of punitive damages in certain circumstances, and attorney’s fees and court costs. Bad faith insurance claim practices include, but are not limited to:

• failing to attempt in good faith to settle a case within the policy limits when liability is reasonably clear;
• making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting forth the coverage under which payments are being made; and
• failing to promptly settle claims, when such obligation is reasonably clear in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage (except as to liability).

An elimination period is a waiting period which must be satisfied prior to being eligible to receive disability benefits. In many cases, an elimination period requires that you are continuously disabled for the specified amount of consecutive days, typically 30 to 90 days, and in some cases 180 days, before disability benefits are due.

If the carrier denies your claim for benefits, the reviewer must provide the following information in its initial denial letter:

• the specific reasons for the denial;
• reference the specific policy provisions it relied upon to deny your claim;
• a description of the specific information or documentation that is needed to perfect your claim (i.e. make it valid);
• a specific explanation of what steps need to be taken to have your claim reviewed;
• a recitation of your right to obtain internal guidelines, rules or criteria utilized in the carrier’s review and denial of your claim; and
• inform you of your right to bring a lawsuit under ERISA after exhausting your administrative remedies with the carrier.

Yes, the insurance company may offset your monthly benefits if there is a provision in the policy providing the insurance carrier with such a right. Most group polices contain a list of the types of “other benefits” it may offset from the base monthly benefit. Common offsets include, but are not limited to, workers’ compensation benefits and social security disability benefits.

Yes, under ERISA, if a claim is denied initially, then “a full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim” is required under 29 U.S.C. §1133 (2). Further, in order to be able to subsequently file a lawsuit, you are required to appeal the initial denial. Your policy will provide specific instructions on how to file the appeal, including specific deadlines, and such provisions must be followed to preserve your right to file a lawsuit.

The appeal stage is a critical stage for you to provide the carrier with all of your supporting documents because this is your last chance, barring some exceptions, for you to provide the carrier with proof of your claim. After the deadline to submit an appeal, you are barred from providing additional supporting information to the carrier. The file in the carrier’s possession, referred to as the “claim file” or “administrative record” is the only record that is provided to the court, should you file a lawsuit. Your trial consists of the judge’s review of this record and no additional information may be added to the record, barring few exceptions. Thus, the appeal is your last chance to prove your claim.

Many insurance companies use surveillance as a means to determine whether to deny a claim and to specifically determine what activities you are doing in order to compare such activities to your ability to work. Of course it is not always relevant to your ability to perform the duties of your own or any occupation. Most often the surveillance is misused or misinterpreted in order to deny a legitimate claim for benefits. However, such surveillance is typically admissible in court.