Unum Insurance Client Cries Foul over Alleged Unum Stonewall Tactics

Chattanooga, TN There is little doubt that Unum has been working to move beyond a reputation tarnished by various accusations that the insurance company, also known as Unum Provident and First Unum, systematically denied the claims of long-term disability insurance clients. However, accusations remain. Witness the plea for help penned by a blogger who appears to have numerous frustrations with Unum:

"I am disabled and have been since 2005," writes "Ripped Off Brides Dad" (ROBD on the Stick Bills Consumer Complaints Board and posted on Linda Nee's blog this week. Nee is now a life and health consultant with a specialty in management of disability income and employer ERISA claims. She was previously an employee of Unum Life Insurance and Unum Provident, and now works as an advocate for consumers who feel slighted by some of the tactics employed by the insurance industry.

"I had purchased Unum's disability insurance through my job [in 2005]," ROBD says. "After months of fighting with this company they agreed to pay short term disability and when the six months passed they said that since my injury was covered by workers comp, I was forced to pay it back.

"I was told that I may be eligible for long term insurance and needed to submit all info from my doctors to be evaluated (pre-existing is not covered) After months of back and forth, repeated claiming that my doctors are not sending the needed info (I had called and they stated it had been sent), [Unum] finally came to the conclusion that my injuries were pre-existing and no coverage would be offered."

ROBD told the insurer that the injuries at issue were not pre-existing, "but they stated that it didn't matter I was not covered." A review was requested. During the next three years, ROBD claims to have repaid a large portion of the funds Unum had asked for. After requesting a further review of the file, the disgruntled consumer was sent a four-inch file with all calls documented and a letter indicating that "I had 180 day to submit an appeal."

That was three years ago. The letter Unum claimed to have sent allegedly never arrived.

After asking a member of Congress to approach Unum on the insured's behalf, a spokesperson for Unum allegedly said on December 22 that the letter of intervention had not been received. When pressed further, the Unum spokesperson said the letter had indeed been received. But according to the insured, the letter sent to the Unum CEO would be intercepted and the original ruling on the case would stand.