Info Library

We believe that the MetLife v. Glenn standard of review may turn out to be better for plaintiffs than the de novo standard of review. This is because a de novo review focuses exclusively on the evidence of New York Disability Lawyer, whereas the Glenn standard also focuses on an insurer’s conduct. In MetLife v. Glenn, the Supreme Court upheld a "combination-of-factors method of review." Under such a standard, "any one factor (even the insurer's inherent conflict of interest) will act as a tiebreaker when the other factors are closely balanced."

On March 27, 2008, Scott M. Riemer filed an amicus brief on behalf of the NYC Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Disability Lawyer New York in the case of MetLife v. Glenn, now pending in the U.S. Supreme Court and waiting for oral argument on April 23, 2008. The brief of the Chapter was proudly filed on a pro bono basis by Riemer Hess LLC and Jonathan Feigenbaum.

New York has always been a regressive State for insurance claims. Not any more. On February 19, 2008, New York's highest Court issued a decision in Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of New York that dramatically changed the legal landscape. An insured can now assert a claim against an Insurance Lawyer New York company for violation of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Therefore, if an insured can establish that the insurance company denial was in bad faith or that there was no reasonable basis for the denial, the insured can recover not only the insurance benefits at issue, but also reasonably foreseeable damages.

If CIGNA, or one of its subsidiaries, denies your long term disability claim, you should send a request to CIGNA demanding a copy of its claims manual. You should ask for it by name; CIGNA calls its claims manual "The Book of Operating Knowledge."

A claimant suffering from bipolar disorder may bring a Lawsuit Disability New York under a fictitious name in order to preserve his privacy. Riemer Hess convinced the federal district court in New Jersey to allow our client to serve as the lead plaintiff in a class action, using the name "John Doe" instead of his real name. Our client was very concerned that if he used his real name that he would be stigmatized as having bipolar disorder, causing him embarrassment and preventing him from working in the future. The Court agreed, holding: