 |
 |
---------- > From: Mary Lou Brooks <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Randall Taylor and general definations > Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 11:49 AM > > I havent had any experrience with .Minnesota Mutual or Phoneix Home Life, > but you will find that most insurance companies opperate with basically the > same rules.Your employer has has declared you disabled, has your > nerologist? Are we talking about LTD> . . > > Total .Disability Definition > Total disability currently appears to be defined with reference to > what can be reffered to as "own occupation" cases and "any occupation" > cases.In any occupation cases , .the insured must establish that he or she > is unable to perform some other reasonable occupation for which he or she > is or could become qualified. > > Adams vs Conferation Life > > > "The words 'reasonably suited" and "having regard to his skill .and ability > "indicate to me an attempt to make it clear that merley because an insured > might be able to engage in some kind of occupation or employment ,he or she > is not thereby disentitled to total disability benfits.Furthermore the > words having regard to skill and ability must have reference to the skill > and ability possessed by the insured person prior to the accident in > respect of which a claim is made .. Otherwise ,it would be difficult , if > not impossible ,for anyone except a person rendered a complete vegtable to > obtain payment of total disability benifits. > > Morse J. > > Penny vs Manitoba Public Insurance Corp.. > > These are the areas that most long term income protection plans will > challange a long term disability payment on.The burden of proof lies with > the indivdual .In short document everything . from the day your dxd.Every > letter, every phone call, every dr, appointment, and keep a diary of whats > happening both physically and mentaly. Youll need the information and if > your memorys llike mine lots of luck!. > > Remember Insurance Companies,are not in business to give money away so keep > good records! > > Andrew [log in to unmask] (This is . canadian case law) IMHO