While the underwriting guidelines of many insurance companies are generally similar, Loyal American has inconsistent underwriting policies. This inconsistency has led to disparate underwriting decisions for the same policy applicants. Additionally, Loyal American relies on various underwriting manuals. Using different underwriting manuals created an environment of inconsistency. This has resulted in policy applicants receiving different underwriting decisions, even if their financial profile was similar.
Sue Mattiace
In Sue Mattiace v. Loyal American Life Insurance Company, the plaintiff asserted claims of breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit against the insurer. In response, the insurer moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The parties then filed motions in limine to exclude evidence that would have prejudiced the plaintiff. Sue Mattiace argued that the “Lyles letter” he wrote two months after he was denied the claim was sufficient to establish the breach of contract claim.
However, a thorough investigation of the policy documents revealed that Loyal Americans had a right to rescind the policy, which was unjustified. While the reason was questionable, the insurance company had a compelling reason for denying Sue Mattiace’s claim for benefits. In this case, Loyal American’s failure to disclose a prior DUI conviction, as Sue Mattiace alleged, was not a material factor in denying the claim.
Joseph Mattiace
Sue Mattiace sought a reversal of the life insurance policy canceled by her husband, Joseph Mattiace after he was legally arrested for DUI in 1989. Sue claims that Loyal American had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its decision to cancel the policy. The court’s ruling states that Sue did not establish entitlement to a directed verdict under the policy’s terms but instead relied on evidence that the company acted in bad faith.
Loyal American argues that it acted within its legal rights by rescinding the policy because Joe Mattiace failed to disclose his prior DUI conviction. However, the other 27 policyholders in the case were unable to disclose a similar event. The decision on whether to grant Sue Mattiace’s claim is still in question. The next step is to determine whether Sue Mattiace has sufficient evidence to support her breach of contract claim.
Loyal American life insurance company
Founded in 1955, the Loyal American Life Insurance Company is a member of the Great America Financial Resources family of companies. The company offers Medicare plan coverage through Cigna and offers Medicare Supplement Insurance Plans in all 48 states. As the company has grown and evolved, so has the quality of its products and services. Read on to find out how Loyal American Life Insurance Company ranks among the most reputable health insurance companies.
Cigna is a leading provider of Medicare Supplement Insurance in most states. The company’s plans offer comprehensive medical coverage, including prescription drug coverage, through a nationwide network of physicians and hospitals. The premiums for these plans are affordable and convenient. Unfortunately, Loyal American Life Insurance Company does not offer prescription drug coverage on its own. However, if you are on a tight budget and are worried about prescription drug costs, a Cigna Medicare Advantage plan may be a good choice.
Cigna Medicare Supplement Solutions
The cost of Cigna Medicare Supplement Solutions is highly dependent on several factors. These factors include age, gender, tobacco use, and health. Additionally, rates vary from state to state. If you are looking for low-cost coverage, a Cigna agent can help you find a plan that suits your needs. You can enroll in a Cigna Medicare supplement plan at any time, including pre-enrolling 90 days before the effective date.
Cigna is a global health company that offers good quality benefits at prices people can afford. It is supported by two insurance companies—Cigna Loyal American Life Insurance Company and American Retirement Life Insurance Company. These companies offer Medicare Supplement plans under different names in various states. Cigna’s Medicare plans are similar to those of other companies, but there are significant differences in cost, price increases, and enrollment rules. Many people choose Cigna because it offers trusted coverage and good value.
Loyal American offers six different Medicare Supplement (Medigap) plans. Each plan helps cover costs that Original Medicare doesn’t pay, like deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments. Some plans also include extra benefits such as accident expense coverage, cancer treatment, or a lump-sum payment for heart attacks. If you’re looking for a Florida Medicare Supplement plan, Loyal American has several options to choose from. It’s essential to compare the plans carefully to find the one that fits your health needs and budget.
Underwriting procedure
The underwriting process for Loyal American Life Insurance Company policies is a rigorous process that requires approval from both the Compliance and Marketing Departments. The advertising materials submitted by agents are intended to generate public interest. To request approval of your advertising materials, go to the AgentView website. The guidelines and forms for advertising may be found there. Once approved, an agent can send the resulting certificate to their client. The company will then review the material.
Loyal American Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of American Financial Resources, Inc. The company’s philosophy is centered on financial strength, and its rating by the A.M. Best Company is “A-” based on the strength of the company’s business profile, balance sheet, and operating performance. It invites you to join its family of financial services and enjoy competitive rates and exceptional benefits.
Failure to disclose prior DUI conviction
The plaintiff alleges that Loyal American canceled her life insurance policy because she failed to disclose her previous DUI conviction. Loyal American argues that her failure to disclose her DUI conviction constituted bad faith, based on the manual that it uses to evaluate such risks. The plaintiff’s claim, however, has several essential merits. Here, we will look at two of those merits.
First, Sue Mattiace argues that she was entitled to a directed verdict on her breach of contract claim. However, she fails to establish that Loyal American was required by law to reject Joseph’s application for life insurance because he had a DUI conviction. Nonetheless, the trial court held that she could not demonstrate that Loyal American acted in bad faith by rejecting Joseph’s life insurance application and rating his policy premium differently.
Second, the plaintiff argues that the Alabama Constitution of 1901 violates the rights to a jury trial and equal protection. In other words, recognizing the tort of bad faith unfairly disadvantages defendant insurance companies. While this argument may sound reasonable, it will ultimately fail to resolve the case. Loyal Americans will likely rescind the policy and deny the claim. And in the meantime, the plaintiffs will be left to fight the case.
Breach of contract
Sue Mattiace, a plaintiff in the case, argues that Loyal American violated her breach of contract claim by not paying benefits based on the false statements Joseph made about his medical condition. Although the trial court rejected Sue Mattiace’s motion for a directed verdict on the breach of contract claim, it does not mean that she did not have a valid breach of contract claim. The Court also found that the evidence Sue presented to support her claim was sufficient to establish that Loyal American breached her contract by refusing to pay benefits.
In the majority opinion, Loyal Americans had no uniform underwriting policy. The underwriting manuals for their policies were inconsistent and based on “subjectivity” rather than risk assessment. This created an environment of inconsistency, leading to disparate underwriting decisions for policies with similar risk profiles. Therefore, Sue Mattiace asserted that she had been unfairly discriminated against and was liable for the company’s discriminatory behavior.
Tort of bad faith
Sue Mattiace sued Loyal American in May 1991, claiming breach of contract and tort of bad faith. Sue alleged the insurance company committed fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit in refusing to pay her claim. The trial court denied Loyal American’s motion for summary judgment, and the parties filed separate motions in limine. Plaintiff’s motion was denied, and the trial court allowed the parties to present evidence.
The tort of bad faith is now recognized in half the states. While the majority of courts reject this theory, the practice has become common, mainly due to its connection to an implied duty of good faith. Under the federal Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), “good faith” means honesty in observing reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. The Connecticut UCC similarly defines “good faith” as “honesty in fact” and excludes conduct that would be characterized as bad faith.
In addition to denying Sue Mattiace’s claim, Loyal American also argued that the law prohibits it under SS 27-14-7. Thus, it violated her rights under the Constitution and violated her equal protection rights. Loyal Americans argued that the tort of bad faith is unconstitutional and favors plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs should have the right to pursue the claim in the federal courts.
