200 W. Madison St. | Suite 2670 | Chicago, IL 60606 | Directions
DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari, PC
Call Now 312-702-1842
800-237-5182 Toll Free
We Return Calls The Same Day.

Job versus Occupation

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").

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • super Lawyers
  • AV - Lexis Nexis - Martindale Hubbell - Preeminent - For Ethical Standards and Legal Ability
  • AVVO - Have No Legal Fear
  • BBB | A+ Rating
  • American Academy Of Trail Attorneys | Premier 100 | 2015 | AATA

Tell Us About Your Issue Today

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Email Us For a Response

Office Location:

DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari, PC
200 W. Madison St., Suite 2670
Chicago, IL 60606

Toll Free: 800-237-5182
Phone: 312-702-1842
Fax: 312-929-0309
Chicago Law Office Map

Office Location