Employees of Michelin, Direct TV and Variety Children’s Hospital Three Plaintiffs Sue Liberty Life For Failing To Pay Long-Term Disability Benefits

Three Plaintiffs have filed disability lawsuits via their respective attorneys in three different divisions of the District Court of South Carolina against Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty). In all three cases, the Plaintiffs filed lawsuits against Liberty for failing to provide long-term disability benefits as stated within their respective Plans.

The First Case – Spartanburg Division

In Vivian C. v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Plaintiff was employed by Michelin North America, Inc. (Michelin). Her employment enabled her to be covered by the long-term disability plan offered by Michelin and administered by Liberty.

Plaintiff became disabled due to various problems, causing her to cease working. She filed a claim for long-term disability benefits. Liberty denied the Plaintiff’s claim, as well as all appeals to that denial.

Plaintiff believes that Liberty denied her appeal based on the fact that Liberty had a conflict of interest due to Liberty being the sole administrator, insurer, and fiduciary of the plan. Liberty relied on biased information and flawed expert opinions to arrive at its decision to deny the Plaintiff her rightful benefits according to the terms of the plan.

Due to exhausting her administrative remedies, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against Liberty.

The Second Case – Greenville Division

In Debbie R. Vs. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Plaintiff was employed by The DIRECTV Group, Inc. (DIRECTV). Due to her employment, the Plaintiff was covered by the long-term disability plan that was provided by DIRECTV and that was administered by Liberty.

Due to her suffering from certain problems, Plaintiff ceased working and filed a claim for long-term disability benefits. Plaintiff’s claim was denied by Liberty. Liberty also denied all subsequent appeals that were filed by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff believes that Liberty denied her appeal based on the fact that Liberty was the sole administrator, insurer, and fiduciary of the plan, constituting a conflict of interest on the part of Liberty. As a result, Liberty ignored the relevant evidence regarding Plaintiff’s condition and instead relied upon biased information and flawed expert opinions to arrive at its decision to deny the Plaintiff her rightful benefits according to the terms of the plan.

Plaintiff has now filed this lawsuit against Liberty because all of her administrative remedies have been exhausted.

The Third Case – Anderson Division

In Brian H. Vs. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Plaintiff was an employee of Variety Children’s Hospital (Variety). Due to his employment with Variety, Plaintiff was covered under the terms and protection of Variety’s long-term disability plan, which was administered by Liberty.

Due to certain conditions from which he suffered, Plaintiff was forced to stop working and filed a long-term disability claim under the terms of the plan. Liberty denied his claim for long-term disability benefits. Liberty also denied the Plaintiff on every appeal that he has submitted to Liberty.

Due to Liberty being the sole administrator, insurer, and fiduciary of the plan, Plaintiff believes that Liberty denied his appeal based on the resulting conflict of interest on the part of Liberty. This conflict of interest led Liberty to use biased information and flawed expert opinions to arrive at its denial decision, instead of the relevant evidence that related to the Plaintiff’s case.

The Plaintiff has now exhausted all of his administrative remedies, leading to his filing of this lawsuit against Liberty.

Relief Sought By The Plaintiffs In Their Respective Lawsuits

The Plaintiffs, via their respective attorneys in their individual aforementioned cases, want the following relief from the Court in the form of a judgment against Liberty:

  • All benefits that have not been paid up to this time in judgment, along with all accrued interest from those benefits not being paid as they should have been
  • All attorney fees and associated court costs
  • All other relief that the Court declares to be just and appropriate