After the transfer of the case to Tennessee, to be joined with other class actions against Unum, it was approved in September of 2007 as a “certified” class action, but that decision was subsequently reversed by a federal appeals court.

We have kept up the fight for seven (7) years against UnumProvident, now called Unum. Despite the setback regarding class certification, we continue to seek additional reforms to Unum’s claims practices and an injunction to stop the use of financial budgets and targets in the denial or termination of disability claims. For more information about our successes, our attorneys, and the premier disability insurance law firm in the U.S., visit us at: http://www.disabilityinsurancelawyers.com/

Several motions are still pending in the U.S. District Court in Tennessee. It is anticipated that the several remaining cases will be sent back to their original venue for trial if Unum’s motions are denied. The case on behalf of our clients will be tried in the Southern District of New York, where it was originally filed.

The case seeks recovery for clients who obtained their disability coverage through their employers. Many of those group insurance policies are governed by a federal law called “ERISA”. We are dedicated to make the case a success, which could still have the effect of bringing about reforms to Unum’s claims practices that could benefit thousands of people across the country who have had their long-term disability claims denied or terminated.

Before starting the case, we conducted many years of investigation and research into the practices of UnumProvident and its subsidiaries. Armed with our extensive knowledge of ERISA law and our many years of experience in conducting litigation on a large-scale basis, we commenced and pursued the largest ERISA disability class action lawsuit ever attempted.

Since November of 2002 we haven taken the fight to UnumProvident and their attorneys, obtaining significant results and gaining protections for literally hundreds of thousands of people throughout the United States. For example:

• Our legal Complaint, filed in the federal court in New York, was vigorously attacked by UnumProvident’s lawyers, who attempted to get the case dismissed. We were successful in defeating UnumProvident on each and every legal issue raised by them.
• When UnumProvident violated court orders to preserve documents and destroyed some of their internal company emails, Quadrino & Schwartz vigorously fought the company, obtaining a critical court decision in our favor.
• Based upon the email destruction and UnumProvident’s failure to fully secure other critical documents, we pressed UnumProvident to gather and secure other documents, and they resisted. When we brought this issue to the court, UnumProvident was ordered to promptly seize critical internal company files from the desks and offices of UnumProvident vice presidents and other managers, so that they could be secured for our review. These materials are now being held in a secure off-site warehouse.

There will likely be further activities in the litigation to determine the full extent of the harm caused to the potential class members due to UnumProvident’s destruction of its internal company emails. Quadrino Schwartz believes that many of these emails contain the critical evidence needed to fully reveal the unlawful claims practices of the company. All of the email tapes that were not destroyed are preserved for our future review so that we can assess what steps the court may need to take concerning this destruction of evidence.

If you would like a free consultation to find out if we can assist you with your case against Unum, UnumProvident, Paul Revere, Provident, or on any claim handled by any of those companies, please fill out our inquiry form at: http://unumprovidentclassaction.net/contact_us/ or call us at 1-800-745-1755.

In rendering the decision, the judge made ninety five (95) separate findings of fact regarding Unum’s scheme to use financial budgets and targets to deny or terminate disability claims.   Among the judge’s findings were shocking revelations about Unum’s use of  “net termination ratios” to deny or terminate enough claims to make the complany meet its profit goals.

The jury in both trials heard evidence regarding the outrageous practices of Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company that were merged into and became a part of Unum and Paul Revere.  Stopping these practices is part of the relief sought in the class action commenced and being pursued by Quadrino Schwartz against Unum, Paul Revere, and Provident.
Several States, such as California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have viable “bad faith” laws or legal precedent that will allow a claimant to sue in court for extra financial damages, such as punitive damages.   Quadrino Schwartz prosecutes bad faith cases, along with local or co-counsel, in all States in which these damages can be sought.

We are the premier disability insurance law firm in the United States. To see how we can help you, click here to contact us:  http://unumprovidentclassaction.net/contact_us/

The case seeks additional reforms to Unum’s claims practices and an injunction to stop the use of financial budgets and targets in the denial or termination of disability claims. Several motions are still pending in the District Court. It is anticipated that the several remaining cases will be sent back to their original venue for trial.

The case on behalf of Quadrino Schwartz’ clients will be tried in the Southern District of New York, where it was originally filed.

The dissent agreed that class certification was proper, but he majority ruled otherwise. Plaintiffs and the proposed Class plan to move for a rehearing by the full panel of judges on the 6th Circuit.

When the case was filed — 5 years ago — Evan Schwartz and Richard Quadrino could hardly have predicted the course of events in their first-in-the-nation class action against UnumProvident, the disability industry giant. They knew this: the case was a serious and ground-breaking lawsuit that had a great chance to help thousands of disabled Americans. What they didn’t know was how many twists and turns there would be until that critical moment in the case: class certification

In late 2002 and early 2003, the case was on a fast track in a federal court in Manhattan. A custom crafted evidence preservation order was obtained to preserve critical emails, yet as the order was being signed, emails were being destroyed. Those events culminated in a unique and important trial on evidence destruction in which Partner Richard Quadrino and a team of lawyers at Quadrino Schwartz took on one of the nation’s powerhouse law firms. The trial ended with critical findings of wrongdoing by UnumProvident and a massive effort to have thousands of emails restored for future use in the case.

The legal theories and approaches in the case were approved by the court when UnumProvident tried to get the case dismissed. The Court approved the method designed by Quadrino Schwartz to allow a class action aimed at reforming the practices of a Fortune 200 Company to comply with the law and stop its illegal use of financial budgets and targets in the claims process.

Another unprecedented move by Quadrino Schwartz was the seizure of files from the desks, credenzas and drawers of all of the company’s top officers to prevent further evidence destruction. A massive effort was ordered, as requested by Quadrino Schwartz, to box up and ship out 1,500 boxes of critical information to be preserved and used in the class action.

After the case was transferred to Tennessee and joined with a series of other similar cases filed in other parts of the country at a later date, the court in Tennessee tried on numerous occasions to get UnumProvident to engage in serious settlement discussions. The company refused, and the case dragged on for years.

Quadrino Schwartz never gave up the fight, however. The pressure applied by the case and the publicity from CBS 60 minutes and other media prompted a government investigation. That investigation culminated in a 48-State settlement in which UnumProvident agreed to some reforms of the company and it mailed notices to thousands of people to have their denied claims re-assessed.

The deal had significant shortcomings, however, and Quadrino Schwartz continued to push for the appropriate relief for all victims of the company’s bad faith practices. Even after many Plaintiffs settled and walked away, Quadrino Schwartz and its clients stayed in the fight, believing that a better day was ahead and that persistence in seeking justice would see its rewards.

Now that a class is certified, Quadrino Schwartz will move into the next and critical chapter of this drama, undeterred and with a determination to see to it that complete justice is achieved for all disabled victims of UnumProvident’s profit-driven scheme.

The original lawsuit drafted and filed by Quadrino Schwartz in New York was adopted and used as the basis for all of the class actions that were merged into one case in Tennessee. The Court quoted substantially from that Quadrino Schwartz Complaint, and based the class certification decision on the legal theories and claims contained in that Complaint. The Court agreed to define the class of disabled victims as a very broad group of people who have had their claims denied or terminated by Unum’s subsidairies that have issued group policies and allegedly engaged in various unlawful claims practices. The class of people who may receive relief from this class action is defined as follows:

All plan participants and beneficiaries insured under ERISA-governed long-term disability insurance policies/ plans issued by UnumProvident and the insuring subsidiaries of UnumProvident throughout the United States who have had a long-term disability claim denied, terminated, or suspended on or after June 30, 1999 by UnumProvident or one or more of its insuring subsidiaries after being subjected to any of the practices alleged in the Complaint.

Quadrino Schwartz represents 4 of the 7 individual plaintiffs in the case who are now class representatives. Those 7 plaintiffs will now represent the interests of thousands of people across the country whose claims were terminated or denied by Unum’s alleged illegal scheme.

In the decision, Judge Curtis Collier, the Chief Judge in the Eastern District of Tennessee, detailed the many allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the Complaint, including allegations that Unum sought to save money by budgeting the claims process, rewarding company employees, including in-house doctors, through compensation and bonuses for denying or terminating as many claims as possible, and creating secret documents which predicted in advance when claims would be terminated.

Important Links:

• 09/04/07- Judge Collier Certifies Class Action
  Click Here to Read the Judge’s Decision
• 09/04/07- Associated Press
  Class Action Status OK’d for Unum Suit

If you are a victim of UnumProvident and did not participate in the government settlement you will now be part of the class action being prosecuted by Quadrino Schwartz, which was certified by a federal judge in Tennessee on September 4, 2007.

UnumProvident’s disability insurance divisions operate under the following names:

• Paul Revere Life Insurance Company
• First Unum Life Insurance Company
• Unum Life Insurance Company of America
• Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company
• Provident Life and Casualty Insurance Company

If you would like a free telephone consultation to find out if you are a potential member of the UnumProvident class action being prosecuted by Quadrino & Schwartz, fill out our inquiry form.

`UnumProvident must now face the hearing on class certification,” said Richard J. Quadrino, one of the attorneys representing Plaintiffs and the class members in the suit. “The federal court acted on an emergency basis because Plaintiffs and the class members are also seeking emergency relief in the Massachusetts Superior Court regarding the notices that are being sent to disabled claimants under UnumProvident’s recent Regulatory Settlement Agreement (’RSA’).” That Agreement between UnumProvident, most of the States, and the U.S. Department of Labor requires notices to be sent to all UnumProvident claimants whose claims were denied or terminated in the last four years. In the Massachusetts class action, known as Jewel et al. UnumProvident et al., No. 03-2391-B, the Plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring UnumProvident to send additional notices to the claimants, who are potential members of the Jewel class action, letting them know of the existence of the case. These additional Notices will enable the claimants to make an informed choice as to whether to participate in the RSA or wait to see if they can obtain more effective and comprehensive relief in the Jewel class action.

A hearing in the Massachusetts Superior Court is now scheduled for Wednesday, January 12, 2005 to address the requests for relief on behalf of Plaintiffs and the class members.

Plaintiffs and the class members in the case are represented by the law firms of Mansfield Tanick & Cohen of Minneapolis, Minnesota (mansfieldtanick.com), Gilman & Pastor of Saugus, Massachusetts (gilmanpastor.com), Sandals & Associates of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (sandalslanger.com) and Quadrino & Schwartz of Garden City, New York (http://www.disabilityinsurancelawyers.com; and http://www.unumprovidentclassaction.net).

The company estimates the settlement will cost it $127 million in restitution to policy holders and in enacting required reforms.

Insurance regulators in Tennessee, Maine and Massachusetts, the lead states in the investigation, signed the agreement, as did officials in New York and the U.S. Department of Labor, spokeswoman Mary Clarke Guenther said.

In trading Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange (news – web sites), UnumProvident shares fell 36 cents to close at $13.73. They soared nearly 7.5 percent, or $1.02, in late trading after the settlement was announced.

The company insures more than 25 million people and has about a quarter of the disability insurance market.

Paula Flowers, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, said that while problems were noted in a very small percentage of claims there were enough that “corrective action was warranted.”

Guenther said insurance regulators in states that sign the agreement would get a share of the fine. She said individual customers would not be affected by whether their states agree.

Final approval of the settlement depends on regulators in two-thirds of the 47 remaining states agreeing. Officials in some states plan to continue their own market conduct examinations.

The investigation started last year in response to customer complaints. Georgia’s insurance commissioner, John Oxendine, in March 2003 imposed a $1 million fine on UnumProvident and its subsidiaries, saying his investigation showed a mind-set of looking “for every technical legal way to avoid paying a claim.”

Flowers said the investigation raised “concerns” that included the company relying “solely on their in-house physicians” to decide whether to deny or terminate some medically disputed claims, basing denials on “very narrow interpretations” and failing to consider both physical and psychological conditions in some cases.

She said the agreement calls for “at least 200,000″ denied claims to be re-examined under the continuing scrutiny of regulators. She said regulators would again examine the company’s claims handling after two years.

If the company does not meet the settlement requirements after two years, there is a possible “contingent fine’” of up to $145 million.

UnumProvident executives previously said disputes represent a small fraction of the roughly 400,000 disability claims the company processes annually.

Guenther said an additional 75 employees would be hired as part of the settlement.

UnumProvident, formed with the 1999 merger of Provident Cos. of Chattanooga and Unum Corp. of Portland, Maine, has more than 13,000 employees worldwide.