1 Comments
Brian:
What I find particularly disturbing here is what you mentioned recently about an equitable application of the make whole doctrine.
It seems that the health insurer has a leg-up in being made whole before Deborah Shank does.
The reason seems to be simply because the plan says so.
I was under the impression this doctrine was originally intended for the human victims, not the insurance companies.
The article mentioned that 1-3% of the claims are recovered through subrogation.
This leads me to believe that the premium savings is 1-3%.
Premiums are ridiculously expensive, but is this the way humans act to emphasize the best of what we have to offer?
Those who are bothered by subrogation have a legitimate right to be so disturbed.
Those who see it as complying with the document are probably heavy smokers who are mentally challenged.
Don Levit
by Don Levit
November 17, 2008 at 01:47 PM
Post a Comment
Articles
- 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.
News
- 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