Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Claims Investigations’ Category

The TruthMost insureds and claimants view disability insurance as “the benefits they love to hate.”  At first glance, disability Plans and policies appear innocent enough to the point that the public still puts trust in insurers to pay benefits they applied for.

However, the claims process surrounding determinations as to who gets paid and who doesn’t is a financial manipulation that entirely ignores any rational personal, or even human consideration of what medical impairment really is. Basically, disability insurance is more of a financial matter and has nothing to do with you as a person, or the fact that you are suffering from one or more medical impairments.

From my other articles, you should know that when claims are opened a financial reserve is created. The larger the monthly benefit, and longer to maximum duration, the higher the claim financial reserve is. Most claims managers and Vice Presidents have access to financial reserves and have various systems within their units that basically targets claims looking for the “biggest bang for the buck.”

The smallest working division in any insurance company is the “unit”, or “team” headed by a claims manager who is performance managed as to his/her ability to consistently meet executive financial targets. Claims managers who can’t “put up” are “pushed out” of the company. Therefore, it is very important for any claims manager to be able to meet executive financial goals. If they don’t…they’re out!

In fact, the primary goal of any unit claims manager is to meet the company’s financial profitability targets. Claims handlers who work under the unit manager are pushed, harassed, and manipulated to do whatever is necessary to “help” the managers achieve financial reserve goals. Claims handlers do not have the autonomy to make decisions on their own and must have decisions “validated” by their managers who are checking financial reserves and how badly a large reserve hit will affect profitability.

“Validation” gives managers a “look-see” and time to place claims in a pecking order of decision-making that balances approval claim reserves against denial claim reserves so that the bottom line produces profitability. More simply, managers must manipulate decisions within a specific time period so that more denials (or, reductions in reserves) takes place than approval decisions.

Therefore, from the claims manager’s perspective, it is necessary to “manipulate”, and I stress the word “manipulate”, claims approvals and denials based on financial reserves and which combinations of approvals/denials will produce target profits. We all know that at least some claims are approvable claims, but IF managers can hold up those approvals, or slide a few in once in a while amidst a rack of denials, an illusion of profitability can be created. Quite clever isn’t it? It’s frequently all about the timing.

Insureds often ask, “Why is it taking so long for Unum, for example, to make a decision on my claim?” Well, now you know. Even though Unum fully intends to pay the claim, the time manipulation has to be played out before the approval decision is actually coded into the BAS or payment system. If there have been a lot of denials coded recently, an approval wouldn’t hurt too bad, but if there have been no denials, an approval could bump a manager into a very poor performance position. All of the claims managers protect their own behinds first and foremost.

Therefore, we now know there is a great deal of manipulation taking place at the managerial levels to produce what looks like meeting targeted profitability. What this means for insureds is that decisions, even when previously made, are not timely and are often held up in the manager’s office to manipulate financial reserve profitability and show a big win for the managers.

In addition, executive management goes absolutely ballistic when the LARs are above 60%. LAR is an acronym for Liability Acceptance Rate. Premium for disability insurance is underwritten at a 60% payout rate, therefore, when claim approvals exceed 60%, it means the company is in a loss situation. Claims managers are given the word from executive management “to deny more claims”, as Cathy Liston once told her management in CBA (Claims Benefit Administration).

And, by the way, you can’t have both an approval and denial in the same  month – it’s considered a wash. If the claim is approved on January 8th, it can’t be denied until February and vice versa.

So, does it appear that there is anything about the claims process that has anything to do with medical impairment and the inability to work? What I’ve described above takes place AFTER the claim has been subjected to various reviews, meetings etc., which we also know are “stack the deck” strategies determined at “off sites” managers go to think up. In fact, these “off sites” should really be thought of as executive “think tanks” to devise more and more strategies that produce denials.

If you think about this, there are very few people who have worked inside a major insurance company who will disclose any connection between claims decisions and manipulation of financial reserves. Even when former employees are no longer employed they rarely reveal the “secrets” behind the claim manipulation.

Unum got into a lot of trouble over reserve tampering, so its response is, “We don’t do that anymore.” Yet, Unum employees who are terminated still report to me that financial reserves are well-known within the units and managers still target “the biggest bang for the buck.” Other insurers allege, “We never did that.” In my opinion, other insurers probably do manipulate reserves, they just do it in different ways; perhaps its done further up on the food chain.

When an insurer tells you in a letter, ” We want to make sure your claim receives every possible consideration”, or, “We will make a decision on your claim within 45 days”, or we have forwarded your claim for medical review (that takes 6 weeks)”, you are not being told the truth. The real truth is that the claim is probably electronically being held on some manager’s desk until the financial reserve profitability can be worked out.

The management of disability claims is much more complex than you think since I’ve only touched the surface of lack of fiduciary duty, and fair and objective claim review. Any insurance company that tells you it reviews claims fairly is not telling you the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Insurance claimsAlthough in recent years I’ve ignored writing about various impairments I’ve gained an expertise with, I think it is a good idea on the cusp of a new year to mention the dedicated areas of expertise that has taken me 25 years to gain and pass on in the form of successfully paid claims.

HIV claims management has always been at the top of my list as an impairment that requires detailed claims management skills. As modern advances have progressed in the last 20 years, insurers are more inclined to allege that a diagnosis of HIV does not necessarily signal total disability.

While insurers such as Unum, MetLife and The Hartford have traditionally targeted those diagnosed with HIV/AIDS due to advances in medications, most HIV patients are still unable to return to work due to residual side-effects and/or continued symptoms. Insurers don’t want to hear it!

Although improved medication trials keep lab report numbers normal, it is likely that HIV patients continue to suffer from symptoms such as chronic diarrhea, peripheral neuropathy, dizziness, and susceptibility to bacterial infection. Therefore, HIV patients with normal T-cell counts, but suffering continued symptoms, may file for total disability, but the application requires specialized medical management. HIV is no longer considered a disabling impairment even when patients continue to suffer symptoms severe enough to preclude work.


While in the past rheumatologists prescribed morphine pumps for Fibromyalgia patients it is no longer true today. Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue have transitioned via the new DSM-5 into somatoform mental illness. Although most rheumatologists continue to treat FMS and CFS, the percentages of treating physicians who actually accept that FMS is permanently disabling is estimated to be less than 50%.

Therefore, patients diagnosed with FMS and CFS are often labeled by insurers as having “self-reported” and/or mental illness rather than physical disease. Benefits are limited to 24 months. A few insurers have closed the loopholes in both ERISA Plans and IDI policies by specifically excluding “connective tissue disease” or Fibromyalgia specifically in policy provisions. Or, various Plans often cite Fibromyalgia as an impairment that is only paid for 24 months.

Although most physicians continue to cite FMS as a “physical” syndrome, most insurers now follow the DSM-5 in identifying the impairment as “all in your head.” Again, FMS and CFS claims generally require some degree of claims expertise to manage.

(By the way, any disease that is classified as a “syndrome” is assumed to be subjective because there is no objective evidence to prove what patients and doctors claim they have. Examples are of course, Fibromyalgia Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Postural Orthostatic Syndrome (POTS), Chronic Pain Syndrome, and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) etc. These are most notably the impairments disability insurers target and often refuse to pay, and are the areas of my expertise.)


Chronic pain also requires a “positioning” with most disability insurers in that the impairment is most often immediately classified as “subjective”. Most insurers will immediately classify “chronic pain” as mental and nervous, limited to 24 months, if the primary diagnosis is just listed as “chronic pain.”

For the most part chronic pain is the result of other diagnoses such as lumbar radiculopathy, disc herniation, cervical issues and so on. Physician documentation of the primary disability as “chronic pain” often brings on insurer hellfire listing the cause of disability as “subjective” and subject to 24 months. The real primary diagnosis, such as disc herniation with nerve involvement is left out of the documentation and insureds suddenly find themselves facing termination of benefits in 24 months.

Chronic pain, in my opinion should most often be listed as a “symptom”, not a primary diagnosis. Interestingly, there is objective evidence for sources of pain while ” chronic pain” listed as a primary diagnosis is subjective. Still, not knowing the significance of a symptom vs. diagnosis, most insureds will allow this situation to get out of hand for quite some time before trying to do something about it. Again, this type of claim requires some specialized knowledge to manage successfully.


Admittedly, there are some claim situations that require expert claims management – not legal expertise mind you, but real claims management know-how. As we transition into 2019 tomorrow, please keep in mind that there are some claims with unique circumstances that require real hands on claims experience and expertise management.

I wish all of you a very Happy New Year. Please stay safe in your celebrations, and I’ll be here on the other side.

 

 

Read Full Post »

business in a mess 2A new trend emerging from Unum seems to hinge on an incredible amount of “disorganization” and claims chaos resulting in the company’s inability to “find anything, do anything, or be timely” about anything. Claims handlers appear to be in complete disorganization “punting” at what to do next.

Perhaps my readers aren’t finding Unum’s disorganization all that unusual since having to deal with Unum’s chaos has, for them, been the norm, but it hasn’t always been that way. In the past, Unum Life Insurance prided itself on the quality of Customer Service even to the point of forcing claims handlers to sign “an oath” of dedication to certain standards. So, what’s happening internally that’s turning Unum into a disorganized mess?

During the last several years, in addition to the normal attrition of employees,  Unum initiated periodic “firings” of employees for various reasons in order to lower its body count. In addition, inside information indicated Unum also terminated employees of entire departments, but kept it quiet and underhanded. Employees report Unum continues to use outdated systems, and if this is the case, it’s reasonable employees may not be able to read the files as they are usually required to do.

In addition, there is every indication that Unum outsources nearly all of its claims review functions to outside third parties. There are so many names of deferred outsources now – Lucens, Dane St. HUB, G4S, ECN, GENEX, Advocator Group etc. that it’s hard to keep up with them. Unum claims handlers do not read the files and therefore requests for the same information goes out time and time again.

Robot Customer Service is allocated all over the country. One has to wonder exactly what  and where the internal employees are Unum actually houses and pays.

As if the above wasn’t sufficient enough harassment to insureds, Unum is now in the habit of alleging “it didn’t get it.” Although this was never the case with Unum, it’s now become a habit for claims handlers to send out duplicate requests for the same information over and over again. This is consistent with information provided to me that Unum’s communication center in Columbia, SC is also in a chaotic mess. Accordingly, Unum’s payroll checks coming from Columbia are also sporadically in a mess.

Tisk..tisk..tisk….This isn’t the Unum I used to know. Attention was given to the claims process and made a priority, as unfair as it was. While I described the insurance bottom feeders such as Aetna, CIGNA, Reliance Standard as inept claims processors,  it does me no pleasure to add Unum Group to that list. The company can’t find anything either, including policy copies, so it’s a real wonder how anything is adjudicated accurately.

I’ve also noticed that if you ask for a “verification of receipt” you may get it, but mostly you will not. Apparently, Unum’s claims handlers are far too busy to send out verification of receipt. If regular business isn’t handled in a timely way, verification of receipt is clearly on the pay no mind list.

For claimants and insureds, Unum’s disorganization adds to an already overwhelming paper chase of disorganization. Claimants have to be sure to “keep an eye” out for repeated requests, disinformation, and harassment. In at least two incidences claimants reported to me being fired by their physicians because of Unum’s harassment for records.

At the same time, Unum’s aggressive risk management of claims adds to the deceptive nature of the overall claims process. It is reported that claims handlers are abrasive and rude, even judgmental.

By the way, information reported here comes to me legitimately from inside employees, readers of the blog via email and phone calls, hundreds of letters I read, attorneys and claimants I speak to, some of which are at the Unum executive level. Negligence is pretty easy to prove.

Overall, based on the information that continues to come in to DCS, Inc., it is my opinion that Unum Group is operating in a chaotic manner with high levels of negligence that evidence “patterns of practice” that management has lost control of the claims process.

It’s too bad Unum’s claimants and insureds are put through immeasurable frustration because management can’t, or won’t get it together.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Everyone can probably recall at least one friend over the years who is a bit scary. You know, the friend who is quirky, moody, unpredictable, and just plain crazy. Even businesses theses days have their own idiosyncracies in process and attitude. And, although insurance companies have always maintained very high standards on the “crazy” ladders of inefficiency, one has to wonder how Unum as a company manages to exist.

I can well imagine Unum Life’s old CEO, Jim Orr III sadly shaking his head in disbelief as   Unum Life Insurance, previously  known as, “Lighthouse to the World” became “An Outhouse” of insurance bad faith in little more than a decade.

Reports continue to filter in regarding Unum’s negligent and inefficient claims process that is grossly untimely, managed by representatives who are rude, disrespectful and unkind. Repeated reports of Unum’s inability to handle STD claims in a timely fashion continue to be reported to me. Not only is Unum the company of “No”, it’s also joined the ranks of CIGNA, Aetna, and The Standard as bottom rung insurers who have difficulty working through their own claims processes.

What does this mean for Unum insureds and claimants?

  • Continued letters from Lucens asking for SSDI Authorizations even when you’ve previously notified you will not sign.
  • Rude phone exchanges in the form of “talking over you” and not giving you a chance to answer questions asked. (Most of you know I do not recommend speaking with Unum reps on the phone anyway.)
  • Allegations of not receiving paperwork with requests for the same information over and over again.
  • Claims reps not reading your file and trying to manage claims with limited or inaccurate information.
  • Using outdated technology internally to attempt to process approximately 500,000 new claims every year.
  • Internal strife — claims reps terminated due to age, sex and accusations of poor performance. Result? Constant new claims handlers, poorly trained and inexperienced.
  • Frequent harassing of physicians for more and more information.
  • Poorly trained claims handlers who are not trained in adjudicating ERISA vs. IDI claims.
  • Letters sloppily written, misspellings etc. Menu template paragraphs not deleted from letters to which the templates do not apply.
  • Gross untimeliness and violation of ERISA timelines.

There is enough evidence out there to suggest that Unum’s operating under a large backlog managed by claims reps who have no idea what they’re doing.

Despite the company’s poor public reputation and negligence, I spoke on the phone to an individual yesterday who told me, “I know my Unum claims handler. I don’t think she would do anything to hurt me! She’s been really nice!” Are you kidding me?

Let me be extremely blunt here. Unum’s claims handlers are trained to NOT tell you the truth, to question you in a way that provides information it can use against you, and is told time and again by management those who file claims are malingerers.

The entire time Unum reps are slapping your backs with gracious platitudes, they are internally  setting up “Primary Plan Directions” describing how they will work toward denying your claims. No one inside Unum is actually working for your general good to pay claims.

To think otherwise is actually, “the blind leading the blind” and is an extremely naive and pitiful position for insureds to take. Insurance companies do NOT work for your general good, nor do they plan to pay your claim long-term. The problem is that Unum now adds “crazy negligence” to the claims process contributing to an already complex and nerve wrecking claims process.

Does any of what I’m talking about sound familiar to you? Do you recognize Unum from your own personal experiences? If so, then you understand entirely the dilemma of Unum’s inability to manage claims in an organized timely fashion.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s obviously a duck. In this case it’s a crazy Unum duck that can’t seem to get it’s ducks (pun intended) together to review claims fairly in a civilized way.

And, buying into the crazy won’t get you a paid claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Once again I find myself answering questions from insureds such as, “Won’t my insurance company turn against me because I hired someone to help me?” “What will Unum do if they find out I hired you or an attorney? Won’t they deny my claim? “Will The Hartford be angry with me?” “I’m afraid to get help because I’m scared my insurer will hold it against me.”

My first thought when I hear to these comments is, “Well, here we go again.”

Although disability Plans and policies are legal contracts, very few people seem to want to defend them. Statistics taken from my own 25 year involvement with claims is that 60% or more ERISA Plan participants bother to obtain copies of their disability documents. I’m guessing around 10-15% of IDI insureds don’t have copies they purchased a long time ago. This isn’t good news either since most IDI policies contain FIO (Future Income Option) Riders with correspondence they may have wanted to keep in a safe place.

I find it astonishing that ERISA claimants often file initial applications and attempt to manage their own claims without ever reading copies of their Plans. I think it’s reasonable to assume that “one can’t defend what you don’t know.” Apparently, my blog has been somewhat helpful when claimants describe to me how they were asked to do a field interview and realized they needed to hunt down copies of their Plans. Usually, it takes some kind of a conflict in order to encourage ERISA folks to finally read, and  become familiar with, their group Plans.

I’m mentioning unfamiliarity with Plans and contracts because insurers take advantage of the fact that claimants are entering the process, unaware, naive, and unknowledgeable. Claimants will do anything, agree to anything, and say anything without thinking, in order to conform with what insurers are strategically requesting to deny claims.  The next claimant thought is, “If I hire someone to help me will the insurance company hate me and deny my claim?”

And, you are afraid of hiring an expert to help you defend what you don’t know?

First of all, insurers can only deny claims for two reasons, 1) you do not meet the eligibility requirements outlined in the policy such as Elimination Period, maximum hours worked, pre-existing conditions, not in an eligible class etc., and/or 2) you do not meet the definition of disability in your policy. While “unfair claims review” and “bad faith are at the root of denials, there are really only two reasons why claims can be denied.

Communications informing of claim denials must cite specific Plan or policy provisions and give reasons why you don’t meet the provisional conditions. New ERISA requirements require even greater disclosures about why claims are not paid.

At the risk of repeating myself again, let me also say that private disability insurers are only interested in the claim financial reserve values of claims and not claimants personally. Insurers do not have the time to “get huffy” and act punitive because claimants and insurers retain assistance.

No insurer cares whether you are “assisted” or not, but they do care about that $500,000 contribution to profit it will get when it denies your claim. Since less than 50% of ERISA claimants do not have copies of their Plans and are unaware of what to defend, they are, unfortunately, easy targets.

Those who are afraid of hiring assistance may not realize there are good reasons to do so. Some claims handlers tell me, “Thank goodness you’re on this claim Linda, I know I’ll get the paperwork I’m asking for right away,” Or, “Can you please tell your client I’m releasing his check because you’ve called me and let me know about the delay?” “I’ll get those forms out right away and send them to your fax.”

In my case, I’m trusted by the claims handlers to provide them with information when they need it! I also know many of the claims handlers and my name brings an element of trust and credibility to the claims management process.

I have to admit I do recommend extreme caution with attorneys who are, in my opinion, not great case managers. Attorneys know where their money is, and it isn’t in sending in update paperwork! In addition, some attorneys like to strong-arm the process that also leads to premature denials, but my major objection is that attorneys simply aren’t good private disability claims managers.

In today’s convoluted private disability world, it is more normal and customary to have assistance than not. Those who are fearful, stressed, and  paranoid about their claims are perhaps more destined to lose them than anyone hiring an expert who does know about Plan and policy provisions and who can help them defend their rights.

It doesn’t make sense to me to be so afraid of getting help while at the same time “punting” with your insurer because you haven’t obtained and read copies of your policies.

Taking a stab at claims management in the dark is far worse than retaining an expert to assist with the claims process in a professional way. There is a great deal to be gained by consulting with experts who are aware of the claims process and can make it work.

Claimants and insureds who are too afraid to defend their rights under their Plans or policies are those who will be facing claim denials in the future. Insurance companies aren’t stupid after all, and can easily identify the weakest links in the disability claim chain.

 

Read Full Post »

Have you ever played a game of Texas hold’em when the deck has been stacked against you? If you have a private disability claim, you have sat at the table with players stacking the deck at every hand.

We now know that the claims review process is so convoluted and deliberately planned that at least 50% of those with private disability claims are denied benefits with a stacked deck.

The claims process for all insurers has been remade over and over again to perfect those strategies that are most successful in discrediting claims. Please find below the ways in which private disability insurers actually “stack the deck” against you.

Policies and ERISA Plans are flawed and unfair in the writing. It’s important not to miss this point. Before anyone actually purchases, or is eligible for group STD/LTD Group coverage, Plans and IDI policies are adverse to the general public. Private disability contains provisions such as changes in definition, mental health limitations and discretionary authority – loopholes to facilitate early terminations.

Liability decisions, present and future, are pre-determined before the claim is ever paid. Most insurance companies have an initial review process requiring claims handlers to determine “claim resolutions”, meaning how the claim will be denied in the future. Unum’s ERDs, documented for each claim within a “Primary Plan Direction” statement, dictates “next steps” in gathering documentation to legitimize the future claim denial.

In other words, insurers pre-determine the goal as denial, and then organizes the collection of documentation that creates the illusion that a denial decision is the right course of action. To this end, third-party facilities are retained to produce persuasive documentation, setting the company an arm’s length” away from medical decisions.

Those reading this post need to STOP and think about this for a moment. Whatever path your claim has been traveling on was pre-determined at the very beginning of your claim; and every action taken by insurers subsequently is to bring a “resolution” (denial) to a timely conclusion.

Even those claims paid for a long time are on a continuous path of pre-determination of what is needed to deny claims. Claims may be left in peace for a while, but whatever the “Primary Plan Direction” is, claims are manipulated and investigated toward that end.

The ultimate goal of setting Plan Directions is to allow managers to plan unit financial reserve profitability that is in line with company objectives. If managers know in advance what claims are planned to be denied, future profitability can be projected. The problem for claims handlers is that they are “pushed” to meet denial projections once planned and documented. Claims specialists who do not meet profitability goals are performance managed, placed on probation

IME Physicians are in the lingo loop. If I asked 5 insurance defense IME physicians to write reports on a fixed set of medical documentation, they would all use the same terminology and language in their reports. It’s as though they are all reading the same manual! It becomes increasingly apparent that IME physicians who’ve been in the business of IMEs for a long time learn what “lingo” to write in order to help insurers deny claims.

“Based on my review of the information provided there are no medical restrictions and limitations precluding this insured from returning to his/her sedentary occupation.” Or, “There is no objective evidence preventing this insured from returning to work full-time without restrictions.” And so on, and so on.

Unum’s old trick was to inform the IME physician of the amount of the insureds benefit. IME physicians were so indoctrinated into the process they knew immediately how important it was to write adverse reports, let’s say for benefits in excess of $4,000/month. The greater the benefit, the  more certain the outcome of the IME report would be in support of the insurer.


If disability insurance products are adversely written from the beginning, AND the outcome of claim applications are pre-determined, AND all internal and eternal reports are biased and prejudicial, AND ERISA Plans are allowed discretionary authority, how can you ever come to the conclusion that you’re sitting at a fair poker table with normal stakes?

The answer is quite simple – the deck is already stacked against you before the cards are dealt. My message in this post is to bring home the reality that there is no such thing as “fair and equitable review”, or even, “good faith and fair dealing.”

Denial and termination outcomes are dealt to you in the first hand even though you may be totally unaware that the cards are already stacked and the game is fixed.

 

Read Full Post »

The Hartford is quickly rising to Unum Group levels of deceptive and dishonest claims management. Not only is the company denying legitimate payable claims, but employing MCN for medical reviews, over-the-top surveillance, in combination with deception and outright lying is the new “pattern of practice” breaking the backs of its claimants.

In a way, this doesn’t surprise me since The Hartford – Unum connection goes back to the old Duncanson & Holt Unum subsidiary management team who seem to use the same unfair practices learned from UnumProvident. What is recently revealed about Hartford, however, is its trend toward disinformation, or as some might say, outright lying, or deception concerning the status of claims.

While The Hartford’s claims process always was kept a “secret”, I don’t remember claims handlers making a real effort to be untruthful, going to the extent to communicate claims were approved only to deny claims several weeks later after extensive investigation results were received. Hartford’s 007 tactics of investigation are not truthful, and in my opinion, misrepresent every aspect of information submitted by claimants’ own qualified physicians.

The Hartford’s public reputation also suffers from what is aptly described as an “unfair claims process overburdened by excessive investigation.” Once a private insurer decides that every claimant is a malingerer attempting to defraud the company, the doors are opened to unfair claims practices that investigate all claims as though they were Al Capone.

Several years ago Ray Bourhis, the prominent attorney in the Hangartner case, told me, “Unum is now no better or worse than any other insurance company.” I disagree. In my opinion every other private insurer lowered their standards to Unum’s, including The Hartford. Private disability insurers are worse now than they ever were with no state regulators looking over their shoulders.

Use of third-party medical reviewers is causing a chit storm across the entire spectrum of private claim review. As a result ERISA claimants are having to suffer the fallout of extreme fraud and investigative paranoia, losing valuable benefits depended upon for financial security.

In my opinion, The Hartford is now second to Unum on the line-up of egregious disability claim review companies. Employers should use extreme caution when spending costly budget dollars on benefits employees will never see.

All insurers are expected to engage in “good faith and fair dealing” review, but unfortunately insurer profits are not derived from “fair and equitable” review. Instead, insurers are now engaging in deceptive claims practices where telling lies through misrepresentation is more profitable.

In my opinion, The Hartford is now second only to Unum Group in deceptive claims practices. The company finally reached the bottom of the egregious barrel, a reputation that is documented all over the Internet.

I would not want to pay The Hartford’s legal bills in the coming months.


DCS is a national consulting organization that provides expert claims management services to those with private insurance. I offer free initial consultation.  Please contact me about how you can become a client.

If you need assistance with your disability claim please feel free to give me a call..

If you are interested in becoming a DCS client, please feel free to visit my website at: http://www.disabilityclaimssolutions.com

  • Telephone: (207) 793-4593
  • Fax: (207) 274-2331

Detailed information about DCS, Inc. can also be viewed on this blog by clicking the “Consulting Services” Tab from the Lindanee’s Blog Home Page. You do not need to go through the complicated maze of disability claim management alone. I am here to help.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: