Paul Revere Life Insurance Claim Denials Attorney

Denied Under A Paul Revere Disability Policy?

Disability claims under Paul Revere Life Insurance Company policies often involve disputes over individual disability insurance, long-term disability coverage, and state law or ERISA-governed benefit determinations.

Many Paul Revere policies remain in force. Claims under those policies are often administered by companies within the Unum Group or by Unum Group employees.

At Eric Buchanan & Associates, we represent policyholders nationwide in disability insurance and ERISA claims involving legacy Paul Revere disability policies, other Unum Policies, and other policies issued by other insurance companies.

Documented History of Paul Revere Claim Practices

  • Federal courts have examined how Paul Revere disability claims were investigated and evaluated based on the evidence presented during litigation.
  • Courts and insurance regulators reviewing Paul Revere disability claims analyzed how medical evidence, occupational duties, and policy definitions were applied to benefit determinations.
  • Published court decisions involving Paul Revere disability policies provide guidance on how courts review these claims under applicable legal standards.

Our Successful Cases Against Paul Revere Life Insurance Company

Eric Buchanan & Associates has represented policyholders in disability insurance and ERISA claims involving Paul Revere disability policies, including cases where coverage turned on the interpretation of policy language and occupational definitions.

Below are examples of cases handled by our firm involving Paul Revere disability policies or related claim administration.

Gillespie v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company

In Gillespie v. Paul Revere Life Insurance, 2021 WL 6333362 (E.D. Tenn. 2021), the court addressed whether a gastroenterologist’s disability claim was preempted by federal ERISA law or could proceed as a state-law breach of contract and bad faith action. Unum and Paul Revere sought federal jurisdiction by arguing the policy was part of an employer-sponsored plan because the employer allegedly paid premiums and provided a “Multiple Life Discount.” However, the court applied the Department of Labor’s “safe harbor” test and found that the policy was exempt from ERISA because the client paid his own premiums from a personal account and the discount was a non-negotiated marketing tool rather than an employer contribution. Determining that the employer’s involvement was minimal and the purchase was entirely voluntary, the court rejected the insurers’ “but-for” arguments, ruled that federal jurisdiction was lacking, and remanded the case to Tennessee state court.

Read More

Goodman v. Unum Group

In the matter of Gillespie v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. and Unum Group, the court addressed whether a parent corporation could be held liable for the benefit termination decisions of its subsidiary to determine if federal diversity jurisdiction existed. After the defendants removed the case to federal court, the plaintiffs sought a remand to Tennessee state court, arguing that Unum Group—a Tennessee-based corporation—was a properly joined defendant, thereby destroying complete diversity. Unum contended it was “fraudulently joined” under an alter ego theory, asserting that only the subsidiary, Paul Revere, was responsible for the claim. However, the court found that because Paul Revere had no employees of its own and Unum exercised complete dominion over its claims management services—even issuing termination notices on Unum letterhead—there was a reasonable basis to pierce the corporate veil under Tennessee law. Consequently, the court ruled that Unum was a legitimate party to the suit, found that federal jurisdiction was lacking due to the shared Tennessee citizenship of the parties, and remanded the case to the Chancery Court for Shelby County.

Read More

Experience with ERISA and Long Term Disability Claims

Eric Buchanan & Associates has extensive experience handling long term disability and ERISA claims nationwide, including claims involving legacy Paul Revere disability insurance policies.

We understand the procedural requirements that apply to ERISA governed claims and how courts review benefit determinations under those standards.

Paul Revere’s Claim Practices and Legal History

Disability claims under Paul Revere policies became the subject of judicial scrutiny in cases where coverage turned on how the policies defined disability and occupational duties.

In published decisions, including Hangarter v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company and Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, courts reviewed Paul Revere disability claims based on how policies were interpreted and applied.

Courts examined issues such as:

  • How disability definitions were interpreted and applied
  • How occupational duties were defined and evaluated
  • How treating physician opinions were weighed against file reviews
  • Whether benefit terminations were supported by the evidence

See Our Happy Client Reviews

Why This Matters

Paul Revere disability claims often turn on precise policy language rather than the presence of a medical condition alone. Courts have made clear, however, that once disability benefits are approved, insurers may not terminate benefits without evidence showing a material improvement in the claimant’s condition.

These decisions highlight why careful handling of disability claims and appeals is critical, particularly where insurers attempt to terminate previously approved benefits based on reinterpretation of the same evidence rather than new medical support.

Financial Pressure on Claim Decision Makers

Courts evaluating disability claims have recognized that insurers responsible for both claims administration and benefit payments operate under structural conflicts of interest. Courts reviewing claims involving Paul Revere disability policies have considered this context when evaluating benefit determinations based on disputed medical evidence or policy interpretation.

These findings describe conduct established in court. We do not speculate about how claims are handled today.

How We Approach Paul Revere Disability Claims

Paul Revere disability policies often hinge on precise policy language, detailed occupational definitions, and how medical evidence aligns with those terms.

Our approach focuses on:

  • We analyze how the policy defines disability and occupation
  • We ensure medical evidence directly addresses those definitions
  • We identify gaps or inconsistencies relied on in claim denials
  • We build a complete and well supported record during the appeal process

In ERISA governed claims, courts often limit their review to the evidence submitted during the appeal, making that stage critical to the outcome.

Our Role As Advocates

The court decisions discussed on this page show how judges evaluate Paul Revere disability claims by closely examining policy language and occupational definitions.

At Eric Buchanan & Associates, we represent policyholders in disability insurance and ERISA claims where coverage turns on how disability is defined, how work duties are evaluated, and how medical evidence supports those definitions.

If your disability claim was denied or terminated under a Paul Revere disability policy, we are prepared to help you evaluate your options and determine 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.