Law

Lincoln Financial Group Lawsuit Injury Claim

If you are injured on the job, or because of a car accident, you may be entitled to a Lincoln Financial Group lawsuit loan. Lincoln Financial is one of the largest and most prominent commercial insurance providers in the United States. Lincoln Financial Group operates through more than 80 insurance companies in more than twenty states. Many injured insured persons have had their personal injury claims rejected, delayed or ultimately canceled by Lincoln Financial. Indeed, policyholders have subsequently filed numerous lawsuits against this company for either wrongful denial of claims or for failure to make timely claim payments.

Lincoln Financial Group Lawsuit

A recent article in HRSA News featured an attorney who represents several current and former Lincoln Financial Group policyholders who have claimed disability benefits from their company. The article noted that since the mid-1990s, Lincoln Financial has routinely refused to issue disability insurance to its policyholders. Disability insurance is designed to provide disability support in the event that you are unable to work. According to the Law and Public Services Review, Lincoln Financial’s policyholders “have been systematically denied reasonable disability insurance coverage for disability-related reasons.” This is not only unlawful but also constitutes financial harm or injury to these policyholders.

Lincoln Financial Group’s policyholders typically have either permanent partial or long term disability insurance benefits denied due to one of two reasons:

(a) actuarial underwriting error; or (b) a long time delay in processing their disability claim. As previously stated, Lincoln Financial Group prides itself on its track record of honoring claims for both “perfectly legitimate” and “possible” injury claims.

In fact, Lincoln’s long-standing policy of treating all injury claims as special cases is what is at the root of the growing number of Lincoln claims being declined or delayed. It is also becoming increasingly apparent that Lincoln is in some way guilty of withholding necessary disability insurance information from injured policyholders. This conduct has created a class of a class-action lawsuit, which could cost Lincoln a lot of money.

Recently, the long term disability policy of Lincoln Financial Group has been questioned by the Washington State Insurance Department’s Division of Professional Licensing and Insurance.

The division referred to Lincoln Financial’s long term disability policy as “questionably invalid” because it provided inadequate treatment for its policyholders. This classification of the Lincoln long term disability policy creates a “substantial doubt as to the validity of the policy.” This is a legally binding distinction that gives rise to a long term disability claim against Lincoln Financial Group.

For this reason, Lincoln filed a motion to dismiss the claim, arguing that the long-term disability rule of injury claims was designed “purposely” to prevent insurance companies from paying benefits to injured persons.

The injury claim failed, because it did not meet the requirements of the law. The injury claim failed because it did not meet the standard required by the injury rule. And, Lincoln Financial Group was aware of this fact. The company had, in fact, advised its policyholders that the long-term disability rule was designed “purposely” to prevent disability insurance claims.

In response, Lincoln argued that the injury rule is not designed to prevent disability insurance claims.

They claimed that the rule is designed to prevent someone from collecting benefits based on an injury he or she might have suffered in another state! That is an incorrect argument; no person can get more than two injuries within a three-year period in any state.

Also, under the District of Columbia City Lines, Lincoln Financial Group is not allowing to limit the number of states a person can file a claim in, nor is it required to limit the time a claim can be filed in any state. If the D.C. city lines had meant that a disabled person couldn’t file a disability insurance claim in its jurisdiction, then the injury rule wouldn’t have been designed to prevent such a person from filing a disability insurance claim in its jurisdiction!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.