Company Overview of Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company provides insurance products and services in the United States. The company specializes in employee benefits solutions, including disability income and group term life insurance, a suite of voluntary coverage options, and absence management. Its products and services include group long term and short term disability, group term life/AD and D, group dental and vision, and business travel accident; STD and LTD management, FMLA administration, STD/LTD, FMLA, and absence management, as well as workers compensation, STD/LTD, and FMLA; and integrated disability, group term life, and group dental. The company also provides health insurance for home healthcare...
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Founded in 1907
Key Executives for Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
Chief Executive Officer of Custom Disability Solutions (CDS) Division and President of Custom Disability Solutions (CDS) Division
Senior Vice President of Underwriting
Vice President and Treasurer
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2014.
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Key Developments
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Grants Patterson Sue against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company for Wrongful Denial of Claim
Jan 15 14
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of a named beneficiary who sued a life insurance company for wrongful denial of a benefits claim following the death of the insured. An incontestability clause contained in the policy applied to preclude the insurer from denying the plaintiff's claim. Dietrich died in March 2010, and Patterson subsequently submitted a claim for benefits under the policy. On Feb. 9, 2011, Reliance denied the claim because, at the time of the application, Reliance had not received proof of Dietrich's good health. After exhausting her administrative remedies, Patterson sued Reliance for wrongful denial of claim and moved for summary judgment. The district court noted the issue before it was whether a two-year incontestability clause contained in the policy barred Reliance from denying payment of benefits. The court found that based on the language of the plan, the required proof of good health qualified as a condition precedent. Condition precedent not fulfilled. The plan provided the insurance would go into effect only on the date Reliance approved the required proof of good health. There was no dispute that Dietrich never submitted proof of good health, and based on those facts, the court held she failed to fulfill a condition precedent required by the plan. The court further held, however, that under an applicable California appellate court precedent, an incontestability clause applied to a contest based on breach of a condition precedent. As a result, and because it was undisputed Dietrich timely paid her premiums and more than two years passed between the issuance of the policy and Dietrich's death, the court held the incontestability clause precluded Reliance from denying Patterson's claim for benefits under the policy. Patterson's motion for summary judgment was therefore granted.
The U.S. District Court Announces Judgment in Favor of Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
Jun 17 13
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of a Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company in an action brought by beneficiaries to a life insurance policy alleging breach of contract and bad faith arising out of a claim for policy proceeds. Nicole Cox, Jaxden Edwards and Kyden Cox sued Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company alleging Reliance failed to make all required payments on a life insurance policy following the death of Steven Edwards, on whose life a Standard policy had been issued. The complaint alleged claims of breach of contract and bad faith. Reliance moved to dismiss, contending the claims were barred under ERISA. The district court noted that Steven Edwards was an employee of LKQ Corp. and secured the life insurance benefits under an ERISA-regulated employee benefits plan sponsored by LKQ. Reliance contended that it was not required to make payments under a supplemental life policy because Edward failed to provide a required proof of good health. The court noted that all five applicable factors established under relevant precedent favored a finding that the supplemental policy was governed by ERISA. The court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the supplemental coverage could be severed from the plan as a whole to defeat ERISA coverage. LKQ's contribution to the basic life coverage plan applied to the supplemental plan, which was provided at a discount only to participants of the discount plan. In addition, the complaint sought only to rectify a wrongful denial of benefits promised under an ERISA plan, and did not attempt to remedy any violation of a legal duty independent of ERISA.
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of an Action against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
Sep 24 12
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of an action brought by a plan participant against an ERISA-regulated disability benefits plan administrator for wrongful termination of benefits. The participant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and the administrator was not estopped by its own alleged misrepresentations from asserting failure to exhaust as a defense to the claim. In 1991, Deborah Schorsch enrolled through her employer in an ERISA-regulated long-term group disability insurance plan issued and administered by
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. On Aug. 1, 1992, a car struck the passenger side of a car in which Schorsch was a passenger, and Schorsch as a result sustained spinal cord damage which rendered her disabled. Reliance approved Schorsch's related claim for disability benefits, and after 60 months, Reliance further determined that she met the more stringent definition of total disability, which required that Schorsch be unable to perform the material duties of any occupation as reasonably allowed by her education, training or experience. Reliance told Schorsch she could receive disability payments until she reached the age of 65 or until her condition no longer satisfied that definition of disability. On May 19, 2006, at Reliance's request, Schorsch underwent an independent medical examination (IME). The physician who conducted the IME reported 'little objective findings to support any significant restrictions or impairments or any significant impairment'. Based on this report Reliance terminated Schorsch's disability payments. Schorsch sued Reliance for wrongful denial of claim. A district court dismissed the action after concluding that Schorsch failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Schorsch appealed. The Seventh Circuit rejected Schorsch's contention that Reliance's termination notice caused Schorsch's failure to exhaust and that, as a result, Reliance was estopped from taking advantage of that failure. Schorsch asserted Reliance falsely stated that it performed a vocational assessment when it in fact based its denial on a surveillance report as opposed to medical information.
The Seventh Circuit held that Schorsch offered no evidence of reasonable reliance on Reliance's alleged misrepresentations. Moreover, even if the notice were deficient, the court found that the alleged deficiencies were not material. Accordingly, the district court's judgment was affirmed.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions
|No transactions available in the past 12 months.|