Prudential Insurance Gets Sued from Coast to Coast for Terminating and Denying Disability Benefits

Bank of New York Mellon employee and two others were recently forced to file a lawsuit against Prudential after being denied disability benefits. With the help of disability attorneys from New York, Pennsylvania and South Carolina, each of these claimants will have their day in court.

Prudential has found itself in a battle with Louis R. and his New York disability attorney as a result of the insurer’s termination of Louis’ disability benefits. An employee of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Louis became disabled in April 2008 and began receiving his Prudential disability benefits.

Two years later, Louis was informed that the insurer would be terminating his disability benefits. Louis requested a review of Prudential’s decision and was again denied. He then sent a letter through a New York disability attorney as an appeal to this decision, and again was denied, leaving Louis with little option except to file a complaint and let the District Court decide his financial future.

The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York requests that the Court award Louis his long term disability award, present, future, and past due, declare Louis disabled, award him court costs and attorneys’ fees, and any other relief available to him as the court deems appropriate.

Prudential Insurance Sued for Denial of Disability Benefits in Pennsylvania

In Lynne G. v. The Prudential Insurance Co. of America, Lynne and her Pennsylvania disability attorney filed the subject lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August 28, 2011. Lynne was employed by Pittsburgh Care Partnership, Inc. as a clinical nurse/home coordinator when she applied for her Prudential long term disability benefits. Lynne became disabled as a result of numerous medical conditions which prevented her from working.

This occurred in August 2009. At that time, Lynne applied for her long term disability. After receiving two years of benefits, Lynne found that her disability benefits had been terminated because the insurer, upon reviewing her claim, decided that Lynne was no longer disabled.

And even though Lynne’s condition has not improved, Prudential denied all of Lynne’s administrative appeals even with ample documentation that verified her disability. Consequently, Lynne and her Pennsylvania disability attorney opine that the insurer’s termination was “contrary to Prudential’s fiduciary duty” and was “arbitrary and capricious,” a no-no according to the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Lynne and her Pennsylvania disability attorney have asked the District Court to weigh in on her dilemma in the lawsuit.

Prudential Life Insurance is Sued in South Carolina

On September 12, 2011, Jamie M. and her South Carolina disability lawyer filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Anderson Division in hopes of forcing Prudential to pay Jamie her entitled disability benefits per her Employee plan. As an employee of Sealed Air Corporation, Jamie is beneficiary of a Prudential disability plan through her employ and is entitled to disability benefits per that plan.
Jamie became disabled, was forced to cease working, and applied for her disability benefits through her Prudential plan. Her claim was denied.

Jamie appealed and was denied again and again, exhausting all her administrative appeals. Then, she hired a South Carolina disability attorney to prepare and present her claim in litigation. According to Jamie’s South Carolina disability attorney and as stated in their complaint against Prudential, Prudential was “operating under a conflict of interest which significantly influenced” the insurer’s decision to deny Jamie’s disability benefits claim. They allege that the company ignored “relevant evidence pertaining to [Jamie’s] claims,” and relied upon “biased information and flawed expert opinions,” thus creating a conflict of interest in their decision.

In the complaint Jamie and her South Carolina disability attorney ask the Court for an award of her entitled long and short term disability benefits, her reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and court costs, and any other relief the court decides is appropriate under the circumstances.