IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TANYA BASTIAN ) CIVIL ACTION 

) 

Plaintiff ) 

v. ) NO. 02-CV-4078 

) 

UNUMPROVIDENT CORP. and ) 

PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT ) 

INSURANCE COMPANY ) 

Defendants ) 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants hereby respond to plaintiff’s complaint as follows: 

1. Admitted, upon information and belief. 

2. Denied. UnumProvident Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of 

the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

UnumProvident is a non-insurance holding company. UnumProvident is not an insurance 

company, is not now and has never been licensed to sell insurance products, and has never sold 

or issued an insurance policy. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company is an indirect 

subsidiary of UnumProvident. UnumProvident has never assumed any liability for insurance 

policies issued by Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company or for claims under Provident 

policies. 

3. Admitted. 

4. Denied. See paragraph 2. 

5. Admitted as to Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company and denied as to 

UnumProvident Corporation. 

6. Admitted, upon information and belief. 

Case 2:02-cv-04078-CMR Document 2 Filed 07/01/2002 Page 1 of 5
 2 

7. Denied. The relevant occupational/job duty facts are contained in the 

administrative record, which speaks for itself. 

8. Admitted with the exception that Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company 

issued the group voluntary short term disability insurance plan at issue. A true and correct copy 

of this plan is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 

9. Admitted with the exception that the operative plan document is attached hereto 

as Exhibit “A”. 

10. Denied. Coverage is defined by the plan document, attached hereto as Exhibit 

“A”, which is a document that speaks for itself. 

11. Denied. Coverage is defined by the plan document, attached hereto as Exhibit 

“A”, which is a document that speaks for itself. 

12. Denied. Further, coverage is and always has been defined by the plan document, 

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, which is a document that speaks for itself. 

13. Denied. The relevant medical issues/facts are outlined in the administrative 

record, which speaks for itself. 

14. Denied. The relevant medical issues/facts are outlined in the administrative 

record, which speaks for itself. 

15. Denied. The relevant medical issues/facts are outlined in the administrative 

record, which speaks for itself. 

16. Denied. The relevant medical issues/facts are outlined in the administrative 

record, which speaks for itself. 

17. Denied. The relevant medical issues/facts are outlined in the administrative 

record, which speaks for itself. 

Case 2:02-cv-04078-CMR Document 2 Filed 07/01/2002 Page 2 of 5
 3 

18. Denied. The relevant medical issues/facts are outlined in the administrative 

record, which speaks for itself. 

19. Denied. The relevant facts regarding plaintiff’s application for disability benefits 

and her medical condition are outlined in the administrative record, which speaks for itself. 

20-29. Denied. The handling and evaluation of plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits is 

outlined in the administrative record, which speaks for itself. 

COUNT I: CONTRACT

30. Defendants incorporate all prior paragraphs. 

31. Denied. 

32. Denied. 

33. Denied. 

34. Denied. 

WHEREFORE, defendants request judgment in their favor. 

COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE

35. Defendants incorporate all prior paragraphs. 

36. Denied. 

37. Denied. 

38. Denied. 

39. Denied. 

40. Denied. 

WHEREFORE, defendants request judgment in their favor. 

Case 2:02-cv-04078-CMR Document 2 Filed 07/01/2002 Page 3 of 5
 4 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Count II of plaintiff’s complaint (“Negligence”) is pre-empted by the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or limited because she is not disabled under the 

definitions and terms of the applicable short-term disability benefit plan. A true and correct copy 

of said plan is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 

4. Plaintiff’s claims may be further barred and/or limited by the terms, conditions, 

exclusions, and provisions of the short-term disability benefit plan. See Exhibit “A”. 

5. Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, if any. 

6. Plaintiff’s complaint and claims are both pre-empted and governed by the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.

7. Defendant Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company properly exercised its 

discretion in determining whether plaintiff was entitled to disability benefits. 

8. At all times defendant Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company complied 

with its obligations under ERISA. 

DATE: POST & SCHELL, P.C. 

 BY 

 RICHARD L. McMONIGLE, JR., ESQ. 

STEVEN J. SCHILDT, ESQUIRE 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 1800 JFK Boulevard – 19th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

 (215) 587-1000 

Case 2:02-cv-04078-CMR Document 2 Filed 07/01/2002 Page 4 of 5
 5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the attached Answer with Affirmative Defenses in the foregoing 

matter has been served/filed this day via regular mail to the following person(s): 

Robert M. Knauer, Esquire 

143 North Eighth Street 

Allentown, PA 18103 

POST & SCHELL, P.C. 

 BY: 

 STEVEN J. SCHILDT 

 Attorney for Defendants 

DATE:_____________________ 

Case 2:02-cv-04078-CMR Document 2 Filed 07/01/2002 Page 5 of 5