Deciphering the Homeowner’s Insurance Policy in California

The most frequent questions asked by clients when they initially consult with my offices is, "Does my policy cover this loss? or Does my policy provide for__?" The answer almost exclusively is, "let’s look at your policy." It’s usually at this point that an insured may tell me that the insured has never read the policy, or attempted to read the policy after its initial receipt but gave up because it was so confusing. Although I have been reading and deciphering policies for quite a while, I cannot disagree with any insured when they tell me the language of the policy is muddled or nonsensical. However, despite being a poor read, looking at the policy is absolutely necessary to see if a loss is covered.

In California, as with other states, there are many exclusions added onto a general homeowner’s policy, and losses caused by floods, earthquakes, termites, insects, rats or mice, water seepage, mold, wear and tear, etc., may not be covered unless additional coverage is purchased by the insured.

Generally, homeowner’s policies should all read about the same. It is my intention to provide a roadmap for insureds on how to read their policy and what sections to look for to see if specifics are covered. In most instances, a general homeowner’s policy should provide coverage for property coverage and liability coverage.

When looking at a policy, Section 1 contains the specifics for property coverages (A,B,C and D) and Section 2 provides the liability coverages (E and F):

  1. Coverage A provides information regarding the primary dwelling’s covered losses;
  2. Coverage B provides coverage regarding other structures (such as detached garages, sheds, barns, etc. on the property. Coverage B is usually limited to 10% of the Coverage A limit, however additional coverage may be purchased;
  3. Coverage C provides coverage for the contents of your home. This includes costs to replace, or restore items in the home that are damaged by a loss. Although Coverage C for contents may replace clothing, furniture, etc., special coverage may also be purchased for specialty items which are more likely to be targets of a theft and have limited coverage such as jewelry, artwork, cash, etc. Like in Coverage B, more monetary coverage for Coverage C may be purchased at an additional premium agreed on with the insurer;
  4. Coverage D is specialty coverage for loss of use. This type of coverage may or may not be written into your homeowner’s policy, depending on the policy. Coverage D provides for loss of use when an insured is displaced after a loss and may cover costs for rentals, or hotels, meals and storage;
  5. Coverage E provides personal liability coverage when the insured may become legally responsibly for injury to others that come onto the property. Coverage E provides a legal defense and will pay for damages. Coverage E does not kick in for intentional acts by the insured and sometimes in places that are considered high risk or crime areas may be excluded from the policy altogether;
  6. Coverage F provides coverage for medical payments for third persons accidentally injured on the insured’s property.

If in doubt about what coverage your homeowner’s insurance policy provides, remember to ask. Knowing what type of policy purchased prevents an insured from being unprepared in the event of a loss.

Dog Bite Liability

@font-face { font-family: Arial; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; } P.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } @font-face { font-family: Arial; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; } P.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } @font-face { font-family: Arial; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; } P.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } @font-face { font-family: Arial; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; } P.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } @font-face { font-family: Arial; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; } P.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman" } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } Your dog may be your best buddy, but he can also become a financial liability if he bites someone. Dog bite litigation is on the rise, and coupled with increased medical costs, is causing a rise in the cost of dog bite liability claims. Dog bites accounted for more than one-third of all homeowner insurance liability claims paid out in 2011, costing nearly $479 million.

Third Party Beneficiary Status Under a Force-Placed in Texas

Banks and mortgage companies regularly buy what is known in the insurance world as “force-placed” insurance coverage. This type of coverage protects a mortgagee’s interest in the property should no other insurance coverage apply. In other words, force-placed insurance ensures that a property is covered, regardless of the circumstances. Most force-placed policies are made between the bank/mortgage company and the insurer. So what rights, if any, does a borrower have under such a policy?

The Texas Court of Appeals for the First District in Houston dealt with this very issue in Alvardo v. Lexington Insurance Company. In Alvarado, Mr. Alvarado refinanced his mortgage, but in order to refinance, he was required to drop his homeowners insurance policy with Columbia Lloyds, and was told by Flagstar Bank, his mortgagee, that it would acquire insurance coverage for the property. Flagstar obtained a force-placed insurance policy through Lexington Insurance Company, and a portion of Mr. Alvarado’s monthly mortgage payment went to pay for that insurance.

Mr. Alvarado’s property was damaged by Hurricane Ike in 2008 while the “forced-placed” policy was in effect. Lexington made an insurance payment for the damage to Flagstar, and Mr. Alvarado was never given any of those proceeds to repair the property. Mr. Alvarado then attempted to recover insurance proceeds to repair his home, but Lexington told him that because he was not listed as an insured under the forced-placed policy, he had no rights under the policy and they would not be issuing any payment to him. Mr. Alvardo then sued Lexington under a third-party beneficiary theory. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lexington, and Mr. Alvarado appealed.

On April 19, 2012, the Texas Court of Appeals rendered its decision. The Court noted that,

Although Texas state courts have addressed whether a party may be a third-party beneficiary in the general insurance policy context, they have not addressed the specific issue of whether a homeowner-borrower qualifies as a third-party beneficiary under a force-placed insurance policy entered into between the insurance company and the mortgage company.

Because there was no guidance at the state court level, the Texas Court of Appeals turned to federal case law for guidance.

The federal courts applying state law, like Texas courts, have looked to the language of the policy to determine whether any of the provisions clearly confer a benefit upon the borrower.

The Court noted two examples where the Fifth Circuit found third-party beneficiary status: (1) when the policy, although only listing the mortgage company as a named-insured, contains subrogation clause providing that the homeowner-borrower will not be liable to the insurance company for any loss paid to the insured; and (2) when the policy contains a provision allowing for temporary housing expenses to be paid to the homeowner-borrower.

Primarily, the federal district courts have focused on whether the policy contains one of two specific clauses that may benefit the borrower: an ‘excess loss’ or ‘residual payment’ clause or (2) a clause providing that the insurer will adjust all personal property losses with, and pay any such proceeds to, the borrower.

The Court concluded that this question is very fact-specific. The Court of Appeals, by a split 2-1 decision, ruled that the specific set of facts in Alvarado did not merit summary judgment for Lexington, and reversed the lower court’s decision.

Debit Interchange Fees Fall 45% for Big Banks

Debit cardThe Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,  which passed in June 2010, aimed to provide oversight and new regulations to protect consumers from predatory financial practices. Among its many provisions, the so-called Durbin Amendment authorizes the Federal Reserve to regulate the fees that debit card issuers may charge retailers at the point of sale.

Plastic is king in American society, and debit cards play a significant role in today’s economy. The use of debit cards has grown more than any other form of electronic payment over the past decade, increasing to $37.6 billion in 2009.  Interchange fees from debit card purchases totaled over $16.2 billion.

On October 1, 2011, the final rule implementing the Durbin Amendment became effective. Since then, the interchange fees that issuers can charge are capped at 21 cents per swipe, however, issuers with assets under $10 million are exempt from this cap. Recent data show that fees for exempt institutions have stayed around 43 cents, about the same as they were back in 2009 before the law was enacted. This exemption expired April 1, and all institutions, regardless of size, will now be subject to the cap. In the meantime, fees at institutions that are covered by the regulations, dropped from 43 cents in 2009 to 24 cents in the fourth quarter of 2011, a 43% drop.

As stated under the law, issuers may only charge fees that are “reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer,” which the Federal Reserve determined in its rulemaking is no more than 21 cents, plus 1 cent for fraud-prevention services. From the start, the financial industry has complained that the cap is too low. Yet, the Federal Reserve defended the cap last month saying it “acted within its discretion.” Nevertheless, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) and eight other groups, which have opposed the Durbin Amendment from the beginning, recently filed an amicus brief arguing this point.  

While the banking industry may be correct that the fees are too low and should be raised, the bottom line is that consumers need protection. Thus, if the Federal Reserve ultimately raises the interchange fee cap, it should only do so to the extent that such an increase will be reasonable and proportional to actual costs, and even then the costs to consumers must be considered.   

This blog post was coauthored by Alison Terkel. 

Insurer’s Right to Contractual Subrogation Trumps Equitable Made-Whole Doctrine Yet Again in Texas

In Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642 (Tex.2007), the Texas Supreme Court held that the “made whole” doctrine does not apply where the parties’ agreed contract provides a clear and specific right of subrogation. Despite this ruling, the Austin Court of Appeals was recently confronted with a situation where a trial court attempted to allocate the entirety of an $800,000.00 settlement in a negligence suit to the family of an individual who was injured in an oilfield explosion and spent 52 days in the hospital before eventually succumbing to his extensive injuries. Although the insurer had intervened in the underlying lawsuit and asserted a contract-based lien of over $330,000.00 on any recovery obtained by the family, the Austin Court of Appeals ultimately agreed with the trial court that equitable principles applied to the subrogation claim, and that where “a subrogation claim works an injustice, it shall not be allowed.” Citing the insurer’s solid financial position and the financial hardship that the family would suffer should the insurer’s subrogation rights be enforced, the entire settlement was ultimately allocated to the family under the “made whole” doctrine.

In reversing the Austin Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court held in Texas Health Ins. Risk Pool v. Sigmundik, 315 S.W.3d 12, 14 (Tex.2010) that the “made whole” doctrine was inapplicable, and that it was improper to cut the insurer out of a settlement to which it had a valid claim. Moreover, the Court noted that the trial court could not cut the insurer out of the settlement simply because it was an insurance company, or because the trial court believed the surviving family needed the money more than the insurer.

The Court further addressed arguments by the family that the insurer failed to carry its burden of establishing that settlement funds should be allocated to its lien. In rejecting this argument, the Court held that such evidence was in fact provided. Specifically, the insurer requested the full amount of the total medical expenses incurred beginning with its first petition in intervention, and also provided extensive medical records and testimony to support both the expenses it requested and the damages suffered by the deceased. The Court ultimately remanded the case to the trial court to determine what portion of the settlement funds should be allocated to the insurer.

The Sigmundik case provides even more persuasive authority for insurers to rely on when asserting contractual based rights of subrogation. Based on Fortis Benefits and Sigmundik, it is clear that the Texas Supreme Court will defer to clear policy language when addressing allocation issues between an insured and its insurer. Accordingly, it is imperative that these provisions be reviewed and analyzed at the outset of a claim so that the insurer is not forced to unfairly compromise its rights of subrogation. In addition, Sigmundik also provides a framework for what an insurer needs to do to adequately protect its contractual subrogation interest (namely, intervene and ensure that its damages are properly pled and supported). Adherence to these suggestions will allow an insurer to negotiate from a position of strength should recovery allocation issues arise.
 

What Are The Parties To Do When There Is A Breakdown In The Appraisal Process?

This was an issue recently in a Florida case from the Second District Court of Appeal, Jyurovat v. Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 2D11–712 (Fla. 2d DCA April 13, 2012). The Court stated “[t]he insurance policy does not address a breakdown in the appraisal process.” The policyholder’s appraiser had fired the neutral umpire from the appraisal process, apparently being dissatisfied with the pace of the umpire’s efforts.

The claim stemmed from a fire loss in January 2008. The insured and the insurer could not agree on a settlement, so the insured demanded appraisal. The parties appointed their appraisers and selected a neutral umpire, who inspected the property. The insured’s appraiser became dissatisfied with the lack of conclusion to the process despite repeated suggestions by the umpire that he would be issuing his award shortly. After the matter had been in appraisal for about seven months, the insured’s appraiser fired the neutral umpire. Universal’s appraiser did not agree to the firing.

The insured sued Universal, seeking declaratory relief on whether the structure was a total loss, whether Universal could withhold overhead and profit, whether the dismissal of the umpire was proper, whether the loss payable under the ordinance or law provision was ripe for appraisal, and damages. Count II of the Complaint sought the appointment of a new umpire.

As an affirmative defense, Universal asserted that the insured obstructed and failed to complete the appraisal process by terminating the umpire without just cause. Universal also counterclaimed for breach of contract. The insured denied terminating the umpire without just cause. He argued that he tried to comply with the appraisal provision but that, after he moved to replace the umpire, Universal raised coverage issues not subject to appraisal. The insured filed an amended complaint seeking damages for breach of contract.

After some discovery in the case, the trial court granted summary judgment for Universal, ruling that the insured breached the policy by unilaterally terminating the umpire and failing to complete the appraisal before filing suit. The insured appealed that adverse ruling.

The Second District Court of Appeal stated that the insured cooperated in the appraisal process from May 2008 until December 2008 and noted that he did not end the appraisal process; he just wanted a new umpire. The Court held that the whether the insured willfully and materially breached the policy by firing the umpire was a question to be decided by a jury, and reversed the trial court’s summary judgment for Universal:

The sole basis for the summary judgment was the purported termination of the umpire and the filing of a declaratory judgment action. The issue of whether this constituted a material breach, if at all, of the policy is a question for resolution by the fact finder. Summary judgment was improper. [emphasis added]

The Court noted that if the insured’s appraiser was dissatisfied with the pace of the umpire’s efforts, the law provides alternatives to unilaterally firing the umpire. The Court cited cases where various emergency motions seeking to replace the umpires had been filed.

Carrier’s Reliance on CPA’s Report to Support Business Income Loss Calculation is Not Sufficient to Defeat Bad-Faith Allegation – Understanding Business Interruption Claims

A federal court in California recently denied AMCO’s request to enter judgment in its favor and dismiss a policyholder’s allegations of bad-faith in the handling of a business income loss claim. In A-1 Transmission Automotive Technology, Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Company, No. 10-8496, 2012 WL 1534466 (C.D.Cal., April 27, 2012), the Plaintiff’s auto garage location sustained a substantial. AMCO commenced a claim investigation a $25,000 advance to compensate for business personal property. The garage owners commenced emergency shoring and repairs required by authorities to allow entry to the red-tagged building and to provide temporary power.

Ten (10) days after the loss, the President of the Company gave a recorded statement and informed AMCO that the business grossed approximately $1 million annually. AMCO advanced $50,000 under the Business Income coverage and obtained an agreed scope of repair. AMCO retained the services of a CPA to evaluate the merits of the business income claim. AMCO requested various financial documents that could support Plaintiff's Business Income claim.

Ten (10) months after the loss, the garage owners submitted a formal business income loss claim requesting an additional $143,099.94 for the loss of income sustained over a six-month period of time. The owners also requested $120,378.84 in Extra Expenses which included $68,000 incurred in additional security for the premises. AMCO renewed its request for financial documents including Plaintiff's general ledgers for 2007 and 2008.

Over the course of a year, the Parties exchanged multiple e-mails and letters, in which Plaintiff sent certain documents to Defendant, and Defendant asked for more documents. AMCO then sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that it did not have sufficient documentation to accurately determine Business Income loss and as a result, it could only estimate the Business Income loss at $29,181.

The garage owners hired an attorney and a CPA who concluded that Plaintiff's Business Income loss was $373,462, in addition to the $120,378.84 in Extra Expenses.

California law recognizes in every contract, including insurance policies, an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which means that the insurer should refrain from injuring its insured's right to receive the benefits of the insurance agreement. In order to state a claim for bad faith, a plaintiff has the burden of showing that (1) the insurer withheld policy benefits, and (2) the delay or denial was unreasonable and without proper cause. Love v. Fire Ins. Exch., 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 271 Cal.Rptr. 246 (1990).

In general, a court may grant summary judgment on bad faith claims where it is undisputed that the basis for the insurer's decision was reasonable, but if there is a question as to whether the insurer acted unreasonably, the court will let the jury determine the reasonableness of the insurer’s conduct.

In this case, AMCO argued that as a matter of law, it cannot be liable for bad faith if it reasonably relied on an expert's opinion to calculate the $29,181 in Business Income loss.

In denying AMCO’s summary judgment, the court stated:

Defendant's reliance on its CPA's opinion does not automatically insulate Defendant from bad faith liability. Reliance on an unreasonable expert opinion or failure to conduct a thorough investigation can still subject an insurance company to liability. Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 987, 995.

[…] Plaintiff originally estimated Business Income loss at $243,099.94, and now, through an expert, has calculated this income loss at $373,462 (with supporting documents). The Court finds that, at this stage, it cannot determine which of these business income loss calculations was correct, let alone whether Defendant had a reasonable basis for choosing the significantly lower estimate.

The case for the garage owners is certainly not over, but they will have an opportunity to present evidence before the jury and obtain an determination on whether AMCO acted unreasonably and in the adjustment of this claim.

Contents Inventory Smart Phone App and Documenting Your Personal Property, Part II

Last week's post featured the new smart phone app that helps insureds quickly capture information needed to document their personal property before a loss. This week, I have written about the organization that created the app -- The National Association of Insurance Commissioners -- and their recent connection with United Policyholders.

Started in 1871, the NAIC is a voluntary organization whose members are the chief insurance regulatory officials of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the five U.S. territories. The organization exists to coordinate regulation of multistate insurers: “The NAIC's overriding objective is to assist state insurance regulators in protecting consumers and helping maintain the financial stability of the insurance industry by offering financial, actuarial, legal, computer, research, market conduct and economic expertise.”

According to the mission statement, the number one objective of the NAIC is to protect the public interest.

Beside the contents inventory application, the NAIC has other resources and website forms that can assist policyholders. The NAIC created the Insure U education program. Available in English and Spanish, Insure U provides insurance information specifically for consumers relating to life, health, home and business coverage. Visit www.insureUonline.org to learn more.

The NAIC webpage is a helpful resource for policyholders nationwide who would like to file a complaint against their insurance carriers. The large interaction map of the US provides shortcuts for each state’s insurance complaint department. Click on the picture of your state and file the complaint.

Of course, when you click on the Florida link, you are directed to a confusing page that does not mention the word “complaint.” After creating an account and clicking on more links, one can finally file their “Request for Insurance Assistance.” This is the code name for a complaint in Florida. Check out my prior post regarding how Florida hides its consumer complaint forms: Does Burying the Complaint Form Deter Policyholders From Filing Consumer Complaints Against Insurance Companies? Other states like Illinois and New York seem to be candid about the ability to file an insurance company complaint. In fact, New Yorkers need only fill out a quick online form to get an instant email confirmation and file number. Illinois’s page has a great title, “I want to file an insurance complaint”.

Why is Florida so secretive about the complaint form? This might be a good question to ask the NAIC president, Kevin M. McCarty, who is also the Commissioner of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, Jeff Atwater is also a member of the NAIC.

While the NAIC members include insurance regulatory officials from around the country, the NAIC also recently welcomed someone we know is on a mission for policyholders, Amy Bach. Amy is the executive director of United Policyholders and this will be her first term on the NAIC Consumer Participation Board of Trustees. The UP website explains their goals for the NAIC:

  • Simplifying policies to make them understandable to consumers
  • Reversing the trend of “exclusions gone wild”
  • Making it possible for consumers to comparison shop for quality and price
  • Advocating for all states to enact post-disaster regulations to address the problems of underinsurance and insufficient ALE benefits

United Policyholders (UP) is a non-profit organization that is a voice and an information resource for insurance consumers in all 50 states. Funded only by donations from individuals and businesses, UP does not accept funding from insurance companies. UP also provides a great resource for policyholders who have suffered a loss. In addition to the smart phone contents inventory, insureds should also check out the Disaster Recovery Handbook & Household Inventory Guide, the handbook Amy Bach and Carol Ingalls Custodio published..

At the time of publication, this was ”the first-ever guide to preparing for and recovering from a natural disaster written by survivors for survivors, along with expert advice from trusted consumer advocates and personal finance professionals."

The book includes:

  • First steps and sources of help on the road to disaster recovery
  • Advice on using tax rules specially designed for loss victims
  • Step-by-step guidelines for optimizing insurance claim recovery
  • Tips for reconstructing the contents of a destroyed home, including detailed lists of items commonly found in households
  • How to find the right professional help
  • Tips and information important for emergency preparedness

This is a valuable resource for public adjusters and policyholders. To order you copy call 1-888-894-8621 or click here to order online. 

This Week on DIAttorney.com (05/12/2012)

Disability Blog & Cases:
New York Federal Court Denies MetLife’s Motion To Dismiss Lyme Disease Victim’s Petition For Disability Benefits

In the case of Karen N. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et. al, the United States District Court of New York, after hearing arguments from both sides regarding MetLife’s Motion to Dismiss the case, denied the motion in its entirety and directs the parties to appear for a status conference to determine how and when the case will proceed. And, while the Court did deny the insurer’s motion, that doesn’t mean that Karen N. will receive a favorable outcome in her lawsuit to receive her disability benefits. It does mean that the Court believes that the case deserves to be heard and ruled upon once all facts have been established.


Disability Blog & Cases:
Pennsylvania Pharmacy Owner Learns The Hard Way That Accuracy Is Everything When Applying for Disability Insurance Benefits

On January 28, 2011, the United Sated District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Michael S. v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, et. al. In addition, the plaintiff’s disability policy and FIO policy were rescinded negating...


FAQ: Social Security Disability Benefits
Can My Disability Insurance Benefits Be Denied If I Am Approved For Social Security Disability Benefits?

Disability Insurance Attorneys Gregory Dell and Cesar Gavidia discuss the misconception that a claimant will be approved for long term disability insurance benefits if social security disability benefits are approved.

National Fibromyalgia Awareness Day 2012: Exposing the Painful Stigma of Fibromyalgia


The National Fibromyalgia & Chronic Pain Association (NFMCPA) announces May 12 as Fibromyalgia Awareness Day.

This year’s theme is “Make Fibromyalgia Visible.” This theme was chosen because of the often subjective nature of this difficult to diagnose, and widely misunderstood, disease. Over 10 million Americans suffer from this chronically painful and debilitating condition, however the stigma of this disease’s legitimacy still lingers.

This disease is typically characterized by a constant, dull, and widespread ache, multiple tender points, abnormal pain processing, sleep disturbances, fatigue, headaches, insomnia, depression, and anxiety. Fibromyalgia cannot tangibly be diagnosed through labs or x-rays, leaving doctors and patients with an often lengthy and grueling process of elimination.
National Fibromyalgia awareness day serves to promote an understanding of the illness. Through the efforts to put Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain in the public consciousness, the campaign hopes to promote the allocation of recourses for research and education, to provide support and resources for families, and, ideally, to facilitate the removal of the stigma which creates a barrier against treatment and further understanding of the disease.

For more information on the events surrounding National Fibromyalgia Day: Click here.

Kantor & Kantor has successfully represented many clients with Fibromyalgia who have been denied health or disability benefits from their insurance companies. There is often an infuriating obstacle that lies between those with Fibromyalgia and obtaining the benefits needed to continue living a financially secure and relatively healthy life: an unfortunate stigma that this disease does not actually exist. Many insurers and employers do not perceive Fibromyalgia to be a legitimate physical illness. Consequently, many insurance policies treat it as a condition with limited health or disability benefits. Kantor & Kantor understands that the symptoms associated with Fibromyalgia can make it extremely difficult to get out of bed, to work, or to receive adequate treatment. We also understand that these symptoms typically do not change over time, necessitating long term disability or health benefits.

According to the Mayo Clinic, “Fibromyalgia generally doesn't lead to other conditions or diseases. But the pain and lack of sleep associated with fibromyalgia can interfere with your ability to function at home or on the job. The frustration of dealing with an often-misunderstood condition also can result in depression and health-related anxiety.” The roots of this are disease are mystifying and ambiguous. Nevertheless, what we can easily gather from the millions of people that suffer with identical symptoms is that its chronicity and incapacitating nature is relentless. See http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fibromyalgia/DS00079/DSECTION=complications

An important piece of advice that we have learned from working with our clients is the significance of finding a physician that understands the disease and supports your treatment plan. Additionally, it is much more valuable for you to see a rheumatologist (a musculoskeletal specialist) versus a general internist. Rheumatologists are often far more familiar with Fibromyalgia and can help you get the proper information and treatment.

If you or someone you know has been denied health, short term, or long term disability benefits for fibromyalgia, contact Kantor & Kantor at (800)446-7529 or www.kantorlaw.net. We can help.