California plaintiff Tracy M. is suing Unum Life Insurance Company for allegedly withholding the money owed to her from her son’s life insurance policy. After her son’s untimely death, Unum had allegedly denied her his life insurance benefits, claiming that his death had been his fault.

Decedent Donovan K. had been working as a full-time Costco employee and had been actively working until his death on Sept. 29, 2014. His insurance policy was provided by Unum Life Insurance Company. Two days before his death, the decedent suffered a devastating motorcycle accident when he collided with a Mercedes in busy traffic.

The reports indicate that the car had been traveling between 5-10 mph on the freeway with four bald tires and one flat tire. Despite these conditions, the car did not pull over or use the shoulder of the road. At the time of the accident, Donovan had been traveling with the flow of traffic and had no reason to expect the passenger vehicle to suddenly appear. Despite emergency medical intervention, he died two days later from severe brain trauma.

According to the accident report, the police concluded that the decedent had committed no traffic violations and that the death was completely accidental. Due to the fact that he had been fully employed by Costco at the time of his death, and had no previous violations, Donovan’s insurance policy still applies.

The decedent’s insurance policy, provided by Unum Life Insurance Company, offered complete disability coverage and a life insurance policy to be paid to the loved one named on his policy, in the case of his death. At the time of his unfortunate demise, Donovan had listed his mother Tracy as the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. This coverage had come into effect in June 1, 2013, and is relevant at all times during this lawsuit, as the decedent had performed all his occupational duties and worked at the company for the minimum time requirement.

Ideally, the grieving mother would have been able to file the claim for the life insurance and would have been paid the monthly sums without hassle; this has not been the case. Initially, the plaintiff had been approved for benefits when she filed in October 2014, filing all necessary paperwork, police report, and medical documentation. Unum approved the life insurance claim and began paying it on Nov. 26, 2014, but had denied the Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance policy claim that also applied to the decedent’s death.

Overview of Unum Claim Denial Allegations

Unum denied the request for the accidental death claim, stating that the decedent’s death had not been entirely accidental. Essentially, Unum had determined that Donovan’s death had contributed to by his own error in some way, but did not specify how. However, due to this reasoning, Unum stated that they had legitimate reason to deny the claim. Donovan’s mother immediately appealed this claim, citing California state law, reiterating the police report, and sending in any requested medical information. At all times relevant, the plaintiff followed administrative procedure and met all deadline requirements.

Unum remains steadfast in their decision to deny the plaintiff her beneficiary payments, and maintain the decedent had somehow contributed to his own death. The plaintiff’s lawyers claim that Unum is basing its decision on bad faith insurance by acting in its own best interest rather than their client’s. So for wrongfully denying Tracy her life insurance benefits, she is suing Unum Life Insurance Company for bad faith insurance practices.

This Unum Lawsuit is Tracy M. v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Case No. 3:15-cv-01445-AJB-JMA, in the U.S. District Court of Southern California.