Bartolic Law has the experience of turning Principal long-term disability insurance denials into payments to clients. Once, our client was a sales representative experiencing signs of early-onset dementia. Getting such a claim approved is critical because of the general inability to become insured under another policy. We portrayed our client in a respectful way that still highlighted her cognitive decline, utilizing witness accounts from family members regarding daily observations and precautionary measures taken, resulting in a paid claim. Another time, we helped a sales manager suffering from agoraphobia demonstrate the client’s disability through the use of video interview in the client’s home, showcasing the client’s reactions to attempts to walk outside. We recognized where medical records leave gaps in proving disability, and helped the client continue living a dignified life while disabled. In another case, our client suffered from lumbar spine deformities. Principal denied the claim because of statements made by the client about sitting for a specified duration. We obtained photos of a living room reclining chair that permitted the client to sit for the stated duration, and demonstrated the client’s inability to meet the same duration in a work environment.
Principal also underwrites business overhead insurance policies, which pay additional benefits to the business in the event of the owner’s disability, helping keep your business a going concern as you get back on your feet. Principal’s policy features and connection to professional associations make it a popular insurer for service providers.
You can rest assured Bartolic Law understands how Principal policies are structured, as the owner of Bartolic Law has a Principal long-term disability policy as well. Even if you do not have a disputed claim, Bartolic Law has consulted professionals on their rights in the event of disability or the residual disability features of their policies.
Ferrin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 336 F. Supp. 3d 910 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2018) (holding insurance policy’s grant of discretionary authority is void under Texas law due to certificate being issued after effective date of regulation, and policy renewing after effective date, and holding Plaintiff was disabled from Any Reasonable Occupation where treating doctors certify she can sit at the occasional level, and insurer’s consultants opine Plaintiff can sit frequently, as weighing all evidence together would make capacity likely at low end of frequent range at best).
Sadowski v. Tuckpointers Local 52 Health & Welfare Trust, 281 F. Supp. 3d 710 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2017) (holding plan was arbitrary and capricious in denying medical benefits for removal of spinal cord stimulator following a fall down the stairs and infection where plan argued the expenses were caused by the same injury as the car accident necessitating implantation of the stimulator years earlier)
Tassone v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2017) (awarding client long term disability benefits denied by United of Omaha despite insurer’s doctor opining there was no objective evidence of functional impairment)
Suson v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-10817, 2017 WL 3234809 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2017) (holding Liberty Mutual’s denial of client’s long term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious where Liberty Mutual disregarded client’s carpal tunnel syndrome and relied on a vocational opinion to which client never had an opportunity to address before litigation)