1

NY/756771v2

SEDGWICK LLP

Michael H. Bernstein 

Daniel M. Meier

125 Broad Street, 39th Floor

New York, New York 10004-2400

Telephone: (212) 422-0202

Facsimile: (212) 422-0925

Attorneys for Defendants

Hartford Life and Accident

Insurance Company s/h/a

The Hartford Benefit Management 

Services and GDB Claims and 

Services Operations

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------------------------------------------------------x

JAMES WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

-againstTHE HARTFORD BENEFIT MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES; GDB CLAIMS AND SERVICES 

OPERATIONS; ABC 1-10 (that being the names 

of the corporate entities, companies, partnership or 

individuals intended), 

Defendants.

Civil No.: 2:11-cv-00602 

Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.

Hon. Michael A. Shipp, U.S.M.J.

DEFENDANT’S COUNTER 

STATEMENT TO 

RULE 56.1 STATEMENT 

 

Motion Date: February 3, 2012

----------------------------------------------------------------x

Pursuant to Rule 56.1(a) of the Local Civil and Criminal Rules of the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey, defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 

s/h/a The Hartford Benefit Management Services, and GDB Claims and Services Operations by its 

attorneys, Sedgwick LLP, submits this Counter Statement to Plaintiff’s unsigned/undated Rule 56.1 

Statement of Material Facts, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Defendant states that it filed its Rule 56.1 Statement of Material Facts dated November 28, 

2011, in support of its own motion for summary judgment. (See Doc. No.: 27). Rather than restating 

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 1818
NY/756771v2 2

those statements herein, defendant respectfully refers this Court to its Rule 56.1 Statement for 

supplemental facts asserted in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Id.).

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

1. Defendant objects to each and every Statement to the extent that Plaintiff has failed 

to include citations to record evidence that would be admissible as set forth in Rule 56(e), FED. R.

CIV. PROC.

2. Defendant objects to each and every Statement that references evidence that was not 

identified in a Rule 26(a) Disclosure Statement, or otherwise, produced in discovery. 

3. Defendant objects to each and every Statement to the extent that it references 

hearsay evidence not attached to a sworn declaration or affidavit made on personal knowledge. 

4. Defendant objects to each and every Statement to the extent it relies on information 

or evidence outside the administrative record to prove Plaintiff’s alleged entitlement to benefits.

5. Defendant objects to each and every Statement to the extent that it treats issues of 

law as issues of fact.

6. Defendant objects to each and every Statement to the extent that it references 

“facts” that are not material to the pending motion for summary judgment.

7. Defendant objects to each and every Statement to the extent it is not a short and 

concise statement.

RESPONSES

1. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence.1

To the extent a response is required, defendant admits that Wright’s claims in this lawsuit should 

 

1 Defendant respectfully refers the Court to Point I(a) of its Memorandum of Law in support of its 

Motion to Strike for a detailed discussion of the law and facts supporting its argument that because 

Wright’s counsel’s supporting affidavit is not based on personal knowledge and plaintiff did not 

otherwise properly authenticate the exhibits annexed thereto, all of the extra-record documents 

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 1819
NY/756771v2 3

decided pursuant to the terms of the Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of JPMorgan 

Chase Bank Plan (“Plan”), which is an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §1001, et. seq. (“ERISA”), and refers the Court to 

the language in the Plan. (1-40)2

2. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. To 

the extent a response is required, defendants admit the Statement. (19).

3. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. To 

the extent a response is required, defendant denies this Statement, but admits that Hartford issued a 

group policy of insurance to fund benefits under the Plan, identified by policy number GLT-675174, 

effective January 1, 2005, and Hartford was designated as the claims administrator for the Plan. (5, 

19, 24). 

4. Objects on the grounds that this Statement cites inadmissible evidence. To the extent 

a response is required, defendant denies this Statement, but admits that it awarded Wright LTD 

benefits from August 22, 2007 through August 3, 2009. (200-203; 147-153). 

5. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. To 

the extent a response is required, defendant admits this Statement, but refers the Court to language 

in the Plan. (21).

 

attached to Wright’s counsel’s affidavit are inadmissible, and the arguments presented there are 

incorporated by reference herein. (Docket Nos.: 46-49). 

2 All references to numbers “00001” through “000039” are to the Bates Stamped pages annexed as 

Exhibit “A” of the Declaration of Juan M. Mendez dated November 1, 2011 (the “Mendez Dec.”). 

All references to numbers “000040” to “000993” are to the Bates Stamped pages annexed as Exhibit 

“B” to the Mendez Dec. All references to numbers “000994” to “001112” are to the Bates Stamped 

pages annexed as Exhibit “C” to the Mendez Dec. All references to the “Complaint” are to the 

Complaint filed February 2, 2011 and annexed as Exhibit “E” to the Declaration of Daniel M. Meier 

dated November 28, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 1820
NY/756771v2 4

6. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. To 

the extent a response is required, defendant admits this Statement, but refers the Court to language 

in the Plan. (24).

7. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. To 

the extent a response is required, defendant admits this Statement, but refers the Court to language 

in the Plan. (20). 

8. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. To 

the extent a response is required, defendant denies this Statement, and refers the Court to language 

in the Plan. (9).

9. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. To 

the extent a response is required, defendant admits that by letter dated August 4, 2009, Hartford 

denied Wright’s continuing claim for LTD benefits because after reviewing all of the information in 

his claim file, Hartford determined that he no longer met the Plan’s definition of disability, but refers

the Court to the actual language in Hartford’s initial adverse benefit determination letter dated 

August 4, 2009. (165-172). 

10. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is not a short and concise statement. To 

the extent a response is required, defendant admits this Statement, but refers to the language in 

Wright’s August 18, 2009 letter administratively appealing Hartford’s initial adverse benefit

determination letter dated August 4, 2009 as well as Hartford’s final adverse determination letter 

dated February 25, 2010. (298-301; 147-153). 

11. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is convoluted and unintelligible as written 

and therefore is not a short and concise statement. To the extent a response is required, defendant 

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 1821
NY/756771v2 5

admits this Statement but refers to the actual language in Hartford’s final adverse determination 

letter dated February 25, 2010. (147-153).

12. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is convoluted and unintelligible as written 

and therefore is not a short and concise statement. To the extent a response is required, defendant

denies this Statement, but admits that it did consider the SIU surveillance footage in its review of 

Wright’s claim for continuing LTD benefits and refers the Court to the actual SIU surveillance 

footage. (298-301; 147-153; 1106; Exhibit “D”). 

13. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects to this Statement on the grounds that it cites inadmissible evidence outside 

of the administrative record.3 To the extent a response is required, defendant admits this Statement, 

but refers the Court to the actual language in Hartford’s final adverse determination letter dated 

February 25, 2010. (151).

14. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects to this Statement on the grounds that it cites inadmissible evidence outside 

of the administrative record. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is 

convoluted and unintelligible as written and therefore is not a short and concise statement. To the 

extent a response is required, defendant denies this Statement.

15. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects to this Statement on the grounds that it cites inadmissible evidence outside 

of the administrative record. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is 

 

3 Defendant respectfully refers the Court to Point I(b) of its Memorandum of Law in support of its

Motion to Strike for a detailed discussion of the law and facts supporting its argument that Wright’s 

extra-record submissions annexed to the Affidavit of Attorney Kevin Kutyla are inadmissible in this 

ERISA§502(a)(1)(B) claim for LTD benefits. (Docket Nos.: 46-49).

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 1822
NY/756771v2 6

convoluted and unintelligible as written and therefore is not a short and concise statement. To the 

extent a response is required, defendant denies this Statement. 

16. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects to this Statement on the grounds that it cites inadmissible evidence outside 

of the administrative record. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is 

convoluted and unintelligible as written and therefore is not a short and concise statement. To the 

extent a response is required, defendant denies this Statement. 

17. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects to this Statement on the grounds that it cites inadmissible evidence outside 

of the administrative record. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is not a 

short and concise statement. To the extent a response is required, defendant denies that it ever 

referred Wright to Kinematic Consultants, Inc. for a functional capacity and work ability assessment 

evaluation nor did it rely on this evaluation during its review of Wright’s claim for continuing LTD 

benefits. (1-1112). 

18. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects to this Statement on the grounds that it cites inadmissible evidence outside 

of the administrative record. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is 

convoluted and unintelligible as written and therefore is not a short and concise statement. To the 

extent a response is required, defendant denies that it ever referred Wright to Kinematic 

Consultants, Inc. for a functional capacity and work ability assessment evaluation nor did it rely on 

this evaluation during its review of Wright’s claim for continuing LTD benefits. (1-1112).

19. Objects on the grounds that this Statement does not cite any admissible evidence. 

Defendant also objects to this Statement on the grounds that it cites inadmissible evidence outside 

of the administrative record. Defendant also objects on the grounds that this Statement is 

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 1823
NY/756771v2 7

convoluted and unintelligible as written and therefore is not a short and concise statement. To the 

extent a response is required, defendant denies that it ever referred Wright to Kinematic 

Consultants, Inc. for a functional capacity and work ability assessment evaluation nor did it rely on 

this evaluation during its review of Wright’s claim for continuing LTD benefits. (1-1112).

Dated: New York, New York

January 27, 2012

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Daniel M. Meier

Michael H. Bernstein, pro hac vice

Daniel M. Meier (DM- 041942006)

SEDGWICK LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

125 Broad Street, 39th Floor

New York, New York 10004 

Tel: (212) 422-0202

Fax: (212) 422-0925

[SDMA File No, 02489-000119]

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 1824
NY/756771v2 8

SEDGWICK LLP

125 Broad Street, 39th Floor

New York, New York 10004-2400

Telephone: (212) 422-0202

Facsimile: (212) 422-0925

Attorneys for Defendants

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company s/h/a

The Hartford Benefit Management Services and 

GDB Claims and Services Operations

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------------------------------------------------------x

JAMES WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

-againstTHE HARTFORD BENEFIT MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES; GDB CLAIMS AND SERVICES 

OPERATIONS; ABC 1-10 (that being the names 

of the corporate entities, companies, partnership or 

individuals intended), 

Defendants.

Civil No.: 2:11-cv-00602 

Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.

Hon. Michael A. Shipp, U.S.M.J.

PROOF OF MAILING

----------------------------------------------------------------x

1. I, Daniel M. Meier, am an associate with the law firm of Sedgwick LLP, attorneys for 

HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY s/h/a THE HARTFORD 

BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES and GDB CLAIMS AND SERVICES OPERATIONS.

2. I hereby certify that I mailed a sealed package with postage pre-paid, via regular mail 

addressed to:

Kevin T. Kutyla, Esq.

83 Spring Street

Newton, NJ 07860

(973) 940-8970

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 1825
NY/756771v2 9

3. This package contained a copy of the Defendant’s Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 

Statement of Material Facts which was filed with the court via ECF.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the 

foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated: January 27, 2012

s/ Daniel M. Meier

Daniel M. Meier, Esq. (DM- 041942006)

 

Case 2:11-cv-00602-SRC -MAS Document 50 Filed 01/27/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 1826