If you ever file a claim with the Standard Insurance Company of Portland, Oregon, watch out for a number of claim denial tactics, games and denial letter lies that they will employ upon you and your claim. They will also do this with vengeance if you ever call them out of their bad faith behavior. One of their in-house attorney’s appear to take it very personal if a claimant’s defends their claim by identifying the Standard’s lies about their claim. I have evidence of this vengeance which also appears to be based in sexual discrimination against women. The above noted was inflicted upon my own occupation disability claim by the Standard in 2009 and 2010, and it still continues as they refuse to answer any questions about the numerous lies in their denial letter and make retribution for them. In 2009 and 2010 I clearly could not perform my job in my condition per my doctor and my employer, and myself. My employer stated in a letter that was provided the Standard that my job was rigorous requiring much stamina and a safety hazard for me and the public if I did not stop working in my field. The Standard basically ignored this warning and attempted to force me back to work by stating that my job was light “strength” using a 1977 outdated and irrelevant DOT job title because it had this classification attached to it. Interestingly, the 1977 DOT job title for a uncover narcotics officer and sheriff has the same light “strength” classification. The problem with this DOT job title is the fact that my job as it is known today did not exist in 1977. The Standard knew this which is why they fraudulently went through two separate versions of this DOT job title and “deleted” the 1977 date of last update. On the U.S. Department of Labor Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), the Standard Deleted the “DLU – 77” Code. On the Skill Tran Job Browser Pro DOT job title, the Standard deleted the “Date Last Updated 1977” which was spelled out. In both reports, the 1977 date was included in a section with other information. None of the other information in that particular section was deleted, only the “1977 Date Last Updated” data. Therefore, it is apparent that the Standard knew that this date would impede their ability to use this 1977 DOT job title to deny my claim based on the “light strength” classification since my job with its present responsibilities and demands did not exist in 1977. I have a copy of both reports from the claim file and the denial letter showing the Standard seeking to fraudulently conceal the above noted fact about this outdated and irrelevant condition of this DOT Job Title. Also, this DOT job title is a “broad range” job title for my profession of which consist of a number of specialties in the private investigation field that range from sitting at a desk or working in the field in situations that can be dangerous. My job was the latter one. The Standard also deleted this information from the DOT job title. On the Skill Tran Report the Standard deleted pages of information that exposed that this DOT job title is, in fact, a “broad range” title and not consistent with the specific duties of my daily field responsibilities. The Standard did this while having a copy of the own job description from my employer sitting right next to them and it was not consistent with the 1977 DOT job title. The Standard only mentioned some of the contents of my employer’s job description in their denial letter pretending to appear as if they are considering the information. However, they discarded the facts about my job when they reverted back in the 1977 DOT job title for its “light strength” classification and denied my claim stating that nothing is impeding me from doing my job which requires only “light strength” job. Therefore the Standard is implying that I, my doctors and my employers are liars. Since I was seeking to get disability benefits, if this were true…, that means that I would also be a fraud. I guess this is why the Standard also decided to delete from the DOT Job title all reference the U.S. Department of Labor included in the DOT job tile that defining those successfully working in the private investigation field as having the attributes and/or requirements of character and honesty. This part of the DOT job title with regard to my private investigation specialty is still valid today. And this characteristic of honestly is used to define me in a number of letters of recommendation from my past employers and job performance records of which the Standard received, but also ignored and discarded from the denial letter. This Standard did not want it to be on the denial record that I have a long reputation of honesty and good character because they were seeking to defame me by implying that I was a fraud and a liar. And they sought to make me out to be a fraud in both denial letters while they were actually defrauding me. Imagine that! The Standard also ignored my 2008 payroll records that showed me to be working full time hours versus the 2009 part time hours I worked for 6 months prior to my cease work date. Even my employer told the Standard that I scaled back my work hours to part time due to health reasons. My medical records also show that I had indicated to my doctor in June 2009 that I had been having my symptoms for about 6 months. Yet, in their denial letter the Standard compared my 1st quarter 2009 hours with my 2nd quarter 2009 hours (which were about the same), and stated that I appeared to work with reasonable continuity in the months prior to my cease work date as I had done previously. This is their exact language which was very creative, but very deception and fraudulent. Let me explain. The quarterly hours they used for each quarter I worked in 2009 (January – June) actually calculate out to be 25 hours per week on average. These weekly hour numbers were also on my payroll records as well as the quarterly hour numbers. The Standard clearly sought to conceal the 25 hours per week by using the 1st and 2nd quarter hours only. Most people easily recognize 25 hours per week as being part time and not consistent with phrased like “working with reasonable continuity”. So the Standard opted to use the quarterly hour number in the 300 hour range to conceal the part time status. Even though my employer stated that I had scaled back to part time due to health issues. The Standard sought to make me and my employer out to be liars with this tactic while it was the Standard who was being deceptive. Imagine that!
Most America’s have the “40 hour per week” number in their head as being a full time job and anything below that as part time. Additionally, the Standard doesn’t even mention my 2008 full time hours in their denial letter when they make their creative but deceptive statement. Clearly, my 2008 full time hours vs. 6 months of 2009 part time hours at 25 hours per week does not display that I was working with reasonable continuity as I had previously done. The Standard’s skill level at dishonesty and fraud is displayed in the above noted. And the above noted two examples with regard to concealing information in the 1977 DOT job title and concealing my 2008 payroll records so they could lie about my ability to work full time are just two examples of these kinds of Standard bad faith tactics. The number of the dishonesty and misrepresentation events in my claim review and denial letter would curl your teeth. But guess what? After months of investigating my claim and getting the bad faith evidence in a user friendly format to present to an attorney, I just found out I cannot get an attorney to take my case on a contingency basis since my modest policy does not have enough monetary incentive. Let me explain as it has just been explained to me by several attorneys I recently talked to. My monthly benefit would have only been $1640.00 a month for a maximum of 5 years. Therefore the total policy value is only $98, 400.00. This is the value without the S.S. rider which would increase the benefit amount by about $30, 000.00 if it was exercised. But this is not enough to change the fact that I am without legal remedy since the maximum policy amount would still be too small to justify an attorney’s cost of litigation. Since disability attorney’s usually work on a contingency basis because the claimant has little or no money, the attorney gets paid only out of any proceeds awarded. This amount is between 33% - 40%. However, if the attorney does not win your case, they get nothing while also being in the hole for the litigation costs. Therefore, the value of the policy needs to be high enough to justify the attorney covering the cost of litigation. The value of my policy rounded off at $100, 000.00 for ease in calculating reveals that 40% or $40, 000.00 is the approximate amount the attorney would take from the benefit amount if my case was successful. However, it would cost about that much (if not more) to litigate. As you can see, an attorney would make no money even if they were able to get the maximum benefit amount of my policy awarded. I would get $60, 000.00. Divide that 5 years and it average out to about $12, 000.00 a year vs. my $35, 000 a year job. It takes about two years to litigate. During that time I would have been forced to live without an income. And due to additional health problems caused by all the stress and work the Standard has forced me to perform while I have been ill, has resulted in a medical condition that makes it impossible for me to hold down a full time job. This condition also delayed my work by months in getting the 15 pounds of claim file investigated to present to an attorney. Even if I were able to get an attorney, I would still be forced to wait up to several years for the matter to be resolved. In the meantime, I would be enduring financial ruin. And if I got my $60, 000.00 or $12, 000. a year back awarded to me after having to give the attorney $40, 000.00 of it. I basically was forced to endure financial ruin of which $60, 000.00 does not little good after being forced to file bankruptcy and/or losing my home. How could I even finance another home with ruined credit? This is the life of many of the Standard’s sick or injured claimants that thought they would be protected from disaster in the effect in sickness or injury that prevented them from doing their jobs. I also am facing the reality of losing my home, my good credit rating, and the inability to pay my medical bills, which keep increasing since I have a $10, 000.00 deductible on my medical insurance. And my medical insurance premiums have been raised every year I have had this insurance since 2006. The Standard’s greed and bad faith review of my claim has ruined my life all because they wanted to keep my $1640.00 a month benefit. Since I have no legal remedy due to having a modest benefit amount, I basically was sold a junk policy of which I have paid about $14, 0000.00 in premiums from my humble income though the years. Several attorneys told me that the Standard no doubt knew of my likely dilemma in this regard which is why they felt so comfortable in lying and committing this fraud against me. Even though the attorneys believed in my case and referred to the bad faith evidence in my binders as “Yep, that looks like the Standard”….they do this all the time, I am still without any legal representation. As one attorney stated “The Standard does this all the time. It is unbelievable to me that I and other claimants in this great county have no opportunity for any legal assistance where they have been defrauded by the Standard Insurance Company because the policy benefit amount is not worth it to an attorney to take the case. You can’t blame the attorney since they are trying to operate a business and cannot work for free forever. They have to take the cases where the benefit amount justifies the cost of litigation. But I do blame the system in the country that has obviously failed its citizens and enables corrupt companies like the Standard to exist and even thrive at the expense of their customers like me. We get blatantly defrauded while the Standard and their well paid employees and vendors laugh all the way to the bank. I will address the issue with their corrupt vendors and my experience with them in my next posting. I am worn out from writing about all of this. But much like our dying soldiers have lifted their weapon and shot their enemy as they take their last breath, I also am able to write… it is my weapon to expose my enemy in hopes of keeping them from harming others. Writing is my way of coping and it is becoming harder to be good at it as I once was. But with help and modern editing capabilities, it will be weapon of choice until I take my last breath.
In closing, I would like to state that I firmly stand behind my allegations of fraud and corruption based on the lies and misrepresentations in all the Standard’s letters to me, including the denial letters; as well as the facts of my case including all the contents of the Standard’s claim file and investigation results relating to the claim file. Anyone interested in speaking with me and reviewing this evidence can contact me at [email protected].