In evaluating occupational disability claims, insurers distinguish between the insured’s job and their occupation.  If an employee cannot perform their job, they may still be denied disability insurance benefits if they remain capable of performing their occupation as it is generally performed in the national economy.  Polnicky v. Liberty Life Assur.Co. of Boston, 2014 WL 6680725, 2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 164890 (N.D.Cal. November 25, 2014) is an illustration of this issue.  There, a mortgage broker employed by Wells Fargo   claimed he was no longer able to make calls upon realtors and customers due to a spine impairment. However, the insurance company insisted that the occupation of “sales representative, financial services” could be performed within the bank while seated at a desk.  The court disagreed.

The court found that “Liberty Life incorrectly applied the definition of ‘Own Occupation’ under the terms of the Policy which meant that Liberty “could not simply ignore plaintiff’s actual job duties at Wells Fargo and define his “Own Occupation” solely by reference to how the position of ‘Sales Representative, Financial Services’ could be performed in the local economy.”

This ruling highlights the importance of utilizing vocational resources in a case such as this.  The outside sales requirements of Polnicky’s job clearly made the difference here.  In addition to the Lasser ruling, other useful cases that require consideration of specific job requirements include Robinson v. Aetna Life Insur.Co., 443 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff deemed “outside” salesman, so driving was an essential job requirement); Kavanay v. Liberty Life Assur.Co., of Boston, 2012 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 171046 (S.D.Miss. December 3, 2012) (even though plaintiff was an “outside” insurance claim adjuster, the insurer had evaluated only the occupation of “adjuster”); Branca v. Liberty Life Assur.Co., 2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 46682 (E.D.Pa. April 3, 2014) (same, except case involved outside salesperson); Bishop v. Long Term Disability Plan of SAP America, Inc., 2008 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 103737 (N.D.Okla. December 23, 2008) (travel deemed essential requirement of occupation); Ganem v. Liberty Life Assur.Co. of Boston, 2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 160542 (D.Maine September 26, 2013) (finding sales employee at “big box” retailer had more strenuous job demands than generic “sales clerk”).

Related Articles

ERISA Ruling Reinforces Claimant Right To Know Denial Basis

ERISA Ruling Reinforces Claimant Right To Know Denial Basis

One of the unique aspects of litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is that most courts limit the scope of their review to the claim record compiled during the course of the claim and prelitigation appeals and will not address new evidence that was not previously considered. […]

Congress Must Ban Discretionary Clauses In ERISA Plans

Congress Must Ban Discretionary Clauses In ERISA Plans

A recent Law360 guest article argued that discretionary clauses in employee benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act serve a valuable function, and that if efforts to prohibit their inclusion are successful, the statute would be undermined […]