Opinion ID: 1097684
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Why wasn't Crenshaw told the reason Bankers Life was denying the claim?

Text: As we have noted Bankers Life was under a duty to investigate Crenshaw's claim, and if the company's doctor was of the opinion trauma had nothing to do with amputation, to tell this to Crenshaw. Bankers Life did neither. Its personnel did not make a proper investigation, and on incomplete information told Crenshaw his claim was denied. The reason they gave was not what their doctor had said, namely: trauma had nothing to do with the limb loss. Instead, they told Crenshaw he had to demonstrate that the accident, solely and independently of all other causes, caused the limb loss, a manifest impossibility in his case. Then, they told him if he had any further information to submit it, assuming no responsibility of checking the facts further themselves. This conduct evidences a lack of confidence in their own doctor's opinion. For, not until trial began did Bankers Life ever attempt to claim that the actual reason for denying coverage was that the accident had nothing to do with the amputation.