UNUM Group Claim Denials Attorney
Has UNUM Denied Your Disability Claim?
Disability claims administered by the Unum Group and its subsidiaries are often denied or terminated despite strong medical evidence supporting people’s claims. Our firm has a long history of helping people deal with the claim denials by the Unum Group or its subsidiaries.
The Unum Group includes companies like Unum Life Insurance Company of America, First Unum Life Insurance Company, The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company.
Our attorneys have extensive experience handling disability insurance and ERISA claims involving Unum companies and assisting policyholders with denied or terminated claims nationwide.
Documented History of Unum Claim Practices
- Federal courts have examined how Unum subsidiaries handled disability claims and evaluated the administrative record and evidence presented during litigation
- Courts have repeatedly reviewed Unum disability claim practices when benefits were denied or terminated despite supporting medical or vocational evidence in the administrative record.
- Following regulatory investigations and market conduct examinations, Unum and its subsidiaries revised internal claim handling procedures related to disability determinations and claim evaluation standards.
Our Successful Cases Against UNUM Group
Eric Buchanan & Associates has helped many clients with claims against the Unum Group and its subsidiary insurance companies. Below are a sample of some of the cases in which we have obtained favorable rulings for our clients in cases involving the Unum Group or Unum Life Insurance Company of America, First Unum Life Insurance Company, The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, and Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company.
Goodman v. Unum Group
In this matter, an anesthesiologist whose disability benefits were terminated by Paul Revere Life Insurance Company filed suit in Tennessee state court alleging breach of contract and bad faith, naming both Paul Revere and its parent company, Unum Group, as defendants. Unum sought to remove the case to federal court, arguing that Unum Group was “fraudulently joined” solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction; however, the legal team successfully argued for a remand to state court by demonstrating that Unum Group was a proper party under the “alter ego” theory. By presenting evidence that Paul Revere had no independent employees and that Unum exercised complete dominion over claims decisions—even issuing termination notices on its own letterhead—the team convinced the court that there was a reasonable basis for recovery against Unum, thereby preserving the client’s right to litigate the dispute in his home jurisdiction.
Willard v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
After Unum Life Insurance Company terminated a client’s benefits during the transition from short-term to long-term disability, a lawsuit was filed under ERISA asserting that the denial was arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiff argued that Unum’s decision was fundamentally flawed because the insurer relied solely on in-house file reviewers who refused to conduct a physical examination, despite “substantial” objective medical evidence and physician recommendations for a functional assessment. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding Unum’s review “clearly inadequate” and lacking a rational basis for discrediting the client’s disability. Citing Sixth Circuit precedent, the court determined that Unum’s failure to meaningfully engage with the medical record rendered the denial arbitrary, ultimately remanding the case for a properly considered redetermination of eligibility.
Boersma v. Unum Life Ins. Co
In Boersma v. Unum Life Ins. Co., the court reversed Unum’s denial of long-term disability benefits for a top executive suffering from chronic pain conditions that were difficult to diagnose through traditional physical markers. Despite Unum’s reliance on a skeptical independent medical examiner who conducted a limited physical review, the court found that the client provided overwhelming evidence of her disability, including a functional capacity evaluation, supporting statements from treating physicians, and corroborating declarations from family and colleagues. The court specifically rejected Unum’s dismissal of self-reported symptoms, noting that such reports are essential for diagnosing the client’s specific conditions and that her long history of professional dedication weighed against any inference of exaggeration. Ultimately, the court held that the client successfully established her inability to maintain a regular work schedule and ordered Unum to provide the withheld benefits.
Wells v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
In this discovery dispute, the court granted a Motion to Compel against Unum Life Insurance after the company repeatedly failed to respond to interrogatories, requests for production, and deposition notices served months prior. Despite multiple “good faith” attempts by the plaintiff to secure discovery and a formal warning from the court, Unum missed several deadlines, leading the court to rule that the defendants had waived all objections to the discovery requests. Consequently, the court ordered Unum to produce all written discovery within ten days and arrange depositions within forty-five days. Furthermore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, the court found that Unum’s noncompliance was not substantially justified and ordered the plaintiff to submit proof of attorneys’ fees and expenses to be shifted onto the defendants as a sanction for their conduct.
Bennett v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
In the case of Bennett v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 321 F. Supp. 2d 925 (E.D. Tenn. 2004), the court established a landmark precedent within the Sixth Circuit regarding the scope of discovery in ERISA benefit disputes. The court balanced the need for an expeditious administrative review against the necessity of protecting employees from fiduciary bias, ultimately ruling that claimants are entitled to discovery outside the administrative record if they can identify specific procedural challenges and provide a “reasonable basis” for those claims. In this specific matter, the plaintiffs successfully justified discovery by presenting evidence from former Unum employees alleging that the company incentivized claim denials through profit-sharing bonuses and the destruction of files to facilitate benefit terminations. While the court did not initially rule on the credibility of these allegations, it found that the plaintiffs had made a sufficient threshold showing—later expanded upon in Myers v. Prudential—to prove that the insurer’s financial interests may have improperly influenced its decision-making process.
UNUM’s Claim Practices and Legal History
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, disability claims administered by Unum companies became the subject of judicial and regulatory scrutiny. Courts and insurance regulators examined how claims were evaluated under policy language, including the handling of medical evidence and occupational duties.
Federal courts issued published decisions involving Unum subsidiaries, including Hangarter v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company and Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, in which courts identified deficiencies in how claims were handled under the terms of the policies.
Courts have also recognized that Unum Group companies often operate under a structure in which theinsurer both evaluates and pays disability claims, creating an inherent conflict of interest that must be considered when reviewing benefit determinations. In cases involving Unum subsidiaries, courts have examined whether this structural conflict influenced claim decisions and whether benefit determinations were supported by the administrative record.
Why UNUM’s Claim Practices Matter to Your Case
At Eric Buchanan & Associates, we have a long history of litigating disability claims involving Unum Group companies and understand how courts evaluate Unum’s claim handling practices. Understanding how Unum and its subsidiaries evaluate claims, apply policy definitions, and operate under structural conflicts of interest can significantly affect the outcome of a disability claim.
Financial Pressure on Claim Decision Makers
Courts evaluating disability claims have recognized the inherent structural conflict that exists when an insurance company both administers claims and pays benefits. When reviewing benefit denials, courts may consider this structural conflict as part of the overall analysis, particularly where claim determinations depend on disputed medical evidence, vocational assessments, or interpretations of policy language. This discussion reflects how courts analyze disability benefit decisions under the law. It does not speculate about how claims are handled today.
How We Approach UNUM Disability Claims
Disability claims administered by Unum companies require careful attention to policy language, medical evidence, and the procedural rules governing benefit determinations under ERISA and
applicable insurance law.
Our approach focuses on:
- Understanding how the policy defines disability and occupation, as well as other important policy terms
- Ensuring medical evidence directly addresses the requirements of the policy
- Identifying gaps or inconsistencies Unum might use to deny a claim
- Presenting a complete and well supported administrative record during the appeal process
In ERISA governed claims, the appeal stage is often critical because courts may limit their review to the evidence submitted during that process. Proper development of the record at the appeal level is essential to preserving a claimant’s rights.
See Our Happy Client Reviews
Our Role As Advocates
The court decisions and regulatory actions discussed on this page are part of the public record and help explain how disability claims administered by Unum companies have been evaluated under the law.
At Eric Buchanan & Associates, we represent policyholders in disability insurance and ERISA claims. Our role is to understand the legal rules that govern these claims, ensure those rules are applied correctly, and advocate for our clients within that framework.
If your disability claim was denied or terminated by a Unum company, we are prepared to help you evaluate your options and determine the appropriate next steps.
Contact Us TODAY!
You don’t have to deal with the insurance company alone. If your claim was denied, delayed, or handled unfairly, our team is ready to review your case and help you understand your next steps. Call: (877) 634-2506