Insurance companies often hire private investigators to find ways to deny or discontinue payment of disability insurance benefits. The tactics that big business uses to develop evidence seems to expand as technology changes. For years, insurance companies have sent investigators to conduct undercover surveillance stake outs, hoping to secure video evidence that a claimant is not really disabled, or is less injured than he or she claims. However, in a court ruling obtained several years ago by our firm, Skibbe v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 05 C 3658, 2007 WL 2874035, at *11 n. 3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2007), the court pointed out:

<p”>The limited footage obtained by the surveillance videos and photographs was ultimately inconclusive because it did not prove that Skibbe was able to perform any job related activities on a daily basis or continue them for an extended period of time. See Osbun v. Auburn Foundry, Inc., 293 F.Supp.2d 863, 870 (N.D.Ind.2003); See also Mullally v. Boise Cascade Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 387, 2005 WL 66070, *7 (N.D.Ill.2005) (stating activities caught on tape only reveal that, for limited periods of time, a plaintiff was able to complete certain activities, but does not illustrate that she is able to work full time because it is easier for her to interrupt her activities when she is at home).

Thus, surveillance video has its limits.  In response, insurance companies today continue to look for new ways to obtain “gotcha” evidence to use against disabled people as a basis to stop paying or deny LTD insurance benefits claims. Drones have been used for stealthy access to the neighborhoods of claimants, although the use of that tactic raises privacy concerns. Investigators may also sit at a desk browsing through countless Facebook, Instagram, and other social media posts, hoping to find a photo of a person frolicking in a bar or enjoying a day at the beach.

Oddly, a Facebook photo is not necessarily current on the day it is posted; and someone may be “tagged” in an older photograph that is posted more currently. Facebook and Instagram photos are thus misleading because they may have been taken years before the claimant’s disability and are not posted with attribution to the actual time the photo was taken.

The seasoned lawyers at DeBofsky Law, have successfully challenged insurance company efforts to discontinue benefits based upon unfair video surveillance and social media evidence. Working with an experienced lawyer who has, as a recent television commercial proclaims, “seen everything,” can help you to protect your rights and financial security.

Related Articles

How Can I Tell If My Benefit Plan Is Governed by ERISA?

How Can I Tell If My Benefit Plan Is Governed by ERISA?

ERISA is an acronym for the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Most people have never heard of ERISA, but its comprehensiveness impacts the vast majority of American workers and their dependents. The original intent behind ERISA’s enactment was to remedy pension plan abuses; however, just prior to Congress’ passage of the ERISA law, the scope […]

How to Defeat Ambiguities in Disability Insurance Claim Forms

How to Defeat Ambiguities in Disability Insurance Claim Forms

The start of every disability insurance claim is the completion of forms the claimants is required to submit to receive benefits. While the forms are ostensibly designed to be clear and straightforward, the questions asked on the disability insurance claim forms often confuse claimants, and ambiguities in disability insurance claim forms can lead to misunderstandings and delays in the processing of claims. […]

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Lawyers who represent employees in severance negotiations should be aware and take heed of the recent New York federal court ruling in Schuyler v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 2023 WL 2388757 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2023). That case illustrated a dangerous pitfall that may unwittingly result in unintended unfortunate consequences based on the court’s finding that an employee’s release of her employer also waived the employee’s right to sue her disability insurer. […]