Prejudgment Interest was awarded on an ERISA claim in Hart v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. C 15-05392 WHA, 2017 WL 4418680 (N.D. Cal. October 4, 2017), in large part because the evidence supported a finding that the insurance company acted in bad faith.
A previous District Judge had held in the same case that the plaintiff, Nancy Hart, was entitled to benefits. The carrier defended against the "'notion'" that it acted with bad faith or ill will because the original judge, who was of course charged with the question of determining Hart's entitlement to benefits, did not even discuss bad faith let alone find it in the conduct of the carrier in the case at bar.
By the time the prejudgment-interest issue was decided, the original judge had retired. The successor District Judge rejected the carrier's purported defense: "The rebuttal inheres in Unum's argument. Judge Henderson had no reason to make explicit findings as to bad faith, ill will, culpability, and the like because his order decided only the question of whether Hart was entitled to benefits. His initial silence did not constitute absolution." [Emphasis added.]
The Court awarded prejudgment interest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
If you or your clients do not have health insurance coverage, check out and sign up at www.healthcare.gov.
You may not have heard the word that health care coverage is available -- right now, today, even as you read these words. It's your right. It's the law of the land!
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments