Plummer | Raval holds documents proving CIGNA / LINA violated insurance regulations in disability claims
Plummer | Raval has an extensive litigation history with CIGNA and has considerable evidence supporting claimants in ERISA cases against CIGNA.
In Schneider v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97867 (D. Or. Oct. 11, 2007) the court found that UNUM may not have come before the court with clean hands. CIGNA does not have clean hands.
Plummer | Raval holds records from government agencies that show CIGNA has violated insurance regulations and is biased against claimants. In one study, a CIGNA office committed a regulatory violation in one out of three claims processed. These violations were against the state regulations or the insurance code.
The bulk of the citations arose because of a failure to adopt and implement standards for prompt investigation and processing of claims and the second largest group arose from failure to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability had become reasonably clear. CIGNA-LINA acknowledged that all of the claimed violations had occurred. In contrast to CIGNA’s disability claims files, the review of 45 life insurance files in the same claims office found everything in order.
CIGNA cannot contest the likelihood that its entire claims operation is similarly infected with inaccurate decisions and regulatory violations in one third of the cases.
The reports and records Plummer | Raval has in its possession meets the Schneider court’s requirement that the insurer seeking to benefit from Plaintiff’s error must not have unclean hands.
In addition to the government reports, Plummer | Raval can cite numerous recent federal court rulings have also accused CIGNA of mishandling disability claims.
Plummer | Raval has documented and verified newspaper studies concerned with flaws in CIGNA’s disability claims practices. One such article describes the comparison of market share to the share of lawsuits for disability benefits. This article discusses six companies, including CIGNA, who are responsible for far more litigation than their share of the disability market would suggest. Every offending company in the study was a for-profit stock insurer. The mutual companies, including such behemoths as Northwestern Mutual and Mutual of Omaha, despite their large market share, apparently are seldom sued perhaps indicating that Wall Street does not compel these policyholder-owned companies to increase profits by cheating on the payment of claims.