Published January, 2014
Rease v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America and KPMG, LLC, Civ. A. 13-CV 5342, Amended Complaint (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013)
Timothy D. Rease, plantiff, brought this case seeking to have his insurance benefits reinstated for the treatment of HIV. The complaint states that Rease was employed by KPMG, LLC, through which he participated in the Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, which was insured by The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential). After becoming totally disabled in 2000 due to complications associated with HIV, Rease began receiving monthly disability benefit payments from Prudential. These payments ceased in 2001 after Prudential claimed that Rease was no longer “totally disabled within the meaning of the plan.” Prudential later modified its decision, but because it contended that Rease’s disability was due to a “mental, psychoneurotic or personality disorder” it limited his benefits to 24 months. While Rease obtained a judgment ordering that his “long term disability benefits were not subject to the 24-month mental illness limitation,” Prudential did not reinstate his benefits until 2004. Prudential terminated Rease’s benefits for a second time in 2010, claiming “he did not meet the definition of disability under the policy.” After failing to get relief through the administrative appeals process, Rease brought this case to have his benefits reinstated. The complaint further alleges that KPMG and Prudential engaged in unlawful surveillance and data collection in regard to Rease while he resided in the Netherlands, in violation of United States, Dutch, and European Union law.
Copyright Information: CHLP encourages the broad use and sharing of resources. Please credit CHLP when using these materials or their content. and do not alter, adapt or present as your work without prior permission from CHLP.
Legal Disclaimer: CHLP makes an effort to ensure legal information is correct and current, but the law is regularly changing, and the accuracy of the information provided cannot be guaranteed. The legal information in a given resource may not be applicable to all situations and is not—and should not be relied upon—as a substitute for legal advice.