Contact Us

Unum Provident Fraud
*    Denotes required field.

   * First Name 

   * Last Name 

   * Email 


Cell Phone 

Street Address 

Zip Code 



Name of insurance company:

Date insurance was purchased:

State where insurance was purchased:

When was claim denied: 

If you received a denial letter from your insurance company, what was the reason listed for denial of your claim?

Did you appeal the claim denial?

Type of policy purchased: 

Face amount of policy: 

What is your disability? 

Do you receive Social Security Disability payments?

Were you denied Social Security Disability benefits?

Do you receive workers compensation benefits?

Are you receiving State Disability insurance?

For verification purposes, please answer the below question:

No Yes, I agree to the Parker Waichman LLP disclaimers. Click here to review.

Yes, I would like to receive the Parker Waichman LLP monthly newsletter, InjuryAlert.

please do not fill out the field below.

Jury Rules UnumProvident Acted With Fraud, Malice

Jan 27, 2003 | The Wall Street Journal

A California jury awarded $31.7 million to a California eye surgeon and said that UnumProvident Corp. had acted with fraud and malice when it denied his disability payments, Monday's Wall Street Journal reported.

The jury in a state court in San Rafael said UnumProvident breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing and awarded Randall H. Chapman $1.7 million in past and future disability benefits and emotional distress and $30 million in punitive damages.

A spokesman for UnumProvident said the company strongly disagreed with the jury decision and that it planned to file motions for posttrial relief and, if necessary, an appeal.

The jury award comes as the claims practices of UnumProvident, the nation's largest disability insurer, are being scrutinized by state regulators in California, Georgia and Tennessee. Lawyers for policy holders who have sued the Chattanooga, Tenn., company contend UnumProvident has been overzealous in denying claims. In November, a federal judge in California said the company had "a comprehensive system for targeting and terminating expensive claims."

The insurer, which is appealing the California case, maintains that it pays all legitimate claims and that critics have distorted its approach, which is geared toward getting employees back to work.

In his complaint against the company, Dr. Chapman said that in 1999 he developed anxiety and tremors that prevented him from performing surgery.

Related articles Other articles
Parker Waichman Accolades And Reviews Best Lawyers Find Us On Avvo