Opinion ID: 2543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: First Unum's Past History

Text: This case also involves another relevant consideration specifically referenced in Glenn : [W]here an insurance company administrator has a history of biased claims administration. Id. at 2351. First Unum is no stranger to the courts, where its conduct has drawn biting criticism from judges. A district court in Massachusetts wrote that an examination of cases involving First Unum ... reveals a disturbing pattern of erroneous and arbitrary benefits denials, bad faith contract misinterpretations, and other unscrupulous tactics. Radford Trust v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 321 F.Supp.2d 226, 247 (D.Mass.2004), rev'd on other grounds, 491 F.3d 21, 25 (1st Cir.2007). That court listed more than thirty cases in which First Unum's denials were found to be unlawful, including one decision in which First Unum's behavior was culpably abusive. Id. at 247 n. 20. Also, First Unum's unscrupulous tactics have been the subject of news pieces on 60 Minutes and Dateline, that included harsh words for the company. Id. at 248-49. First Unum has fared no better in legal academia. See John H. Langbein, Trust Law as Regulatory Law: The Unum/Provident Scandal and Judicial Review of Benefit Denials Under ERISA, 101 Nw. U.L.Rev. 1315 (2007). In light of First Unum's well-documented history of abusive tactics, and in the absence of any argument by First Unum showing that it has changed its internal procedures in response, we follow the Supreme Court's instruction and emphasize this factor here. Accordingly, we find First Unum's history of deception and abusive tactics to be additional evidence that it was influenced by its conflict of interest as both plan administrator and payor in denying McCauley's claim for benefits.