Join The Conversation
Don Levit 11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Brian: Thanks so much for keeping us posted on this important event in California. Actually, I find much fault on both sides. First, Cindy Hailey knew that coverage extended to everyone in the family. She did provide the husband's height and weight, although the weight was very inaccurate. In my opinion, it is not reasonable to assume that the other medical questions did not apply to every member of the family. If Mrs. Hailey assumed that she was the only one that had to medically qualify, and the rest were guaranteed acceptance, then that is an unreasonable assumption, in my opinion. On the other hand, Blue Shield of California was not allowed to perform post-claims underwriting. Admittedly, it may be difficult to determine the extent to which they did, indeed, underwrite. According to the case, if I understand correctly, no medical history was given for the husband and the children. It is unreasonable, in my opinion, for the insurer to assume that no medical history existed for the balance of the family, and the insurer should have inquired at that time. I find it extremely interesting that Blue Shield may have intentionally not responded to the husband's reported medical condition in 2001, because the claim did not justify investigating further. Only when the future claim exceeded the premiums paid, did Blue Shield get nervous. I had no idea this behavior occurred at the insurer level. Don Levit
Post A Comment
- Posted on 05/17/2011 CIGNA v. Amara
- Posted on 03/29/2011 Bloomberg Markets' article on ERISA
- Posted on 12/24/2010 James F. v. CIGNA Behavioral Health Inc.
- Posted on 07/11/2019 Timothy D. v. Aetna Health and Life Ins. Co.
- Posted on 06/24/2019 Family says insurance fails to pay for mental health coverage despite medical necessity
- Posted on 04/24/2006 Eliminating Discretionary Clauses in Insurance Policies