Regardless of the source from which a notice about the pending discontinuance of benefits has come, whether from the company that sold a policy to your employer, or from the seller of a private policy, there are actions that the threatened individual can take.
Possible reasons for end of benefits’ delivery
According to the terms of the policy, the disabled recipient no longer qualifies for receipt of payments.
—During the policy’s first 2 years, he or she must be unable to meet the demands of an existing job.
—When a long-term policy is enforced, the applicant must be unable to do any job for which he or she has been trained or educated to do.
The applicant has failed to stay in compliance with a given policy’s regulations. A failure to inform the insurance agency about a change in jobs or a change in residence could be viewed as an act of non-compliance with a policy’s regulations.
The policy stops offering benefits when the recipient has reached the age of 65. That is the typical retirement age.
How the first 2 reasons differ from the third and final one:
Someone that has been receiving benefits, and has applied for a renewal of the benefits’ delivery would never be able to alter the sequence of days on a calendar, or to expand the length of a calendar year. On the other hand, the same person could check to see if the company that sold disability policies had been mistaken, regarding the abilities of the man or woman that had been denied continuance of coverage.
Why is that difference of significance?
The legal community would never support a plaintiff that has based a claim on the arrival of a natural occurrence. A birthday would be a natural occurrence. Hence, no one could argue against a decision to end delivery of benefits when a given recipient has turned 65.
Yet the legal system does seek to put a stop to any attempt at creating and then enforcing laws. An assertion that someone with a disability could always carry out the tasks expected from someone with comparable skills and training might be proven wrong. It follows that the cessation of the delivery of benefit money could be questioned.
Who would have the authority to introduce such a question, and to pose it to an authority at the guilty company? That person would be a personal injury lawyer in Sydney. Ideally, the disabled recipient of the promised funds from the insurance company would make a point of hiring an attorney.
Then that same attorney could advocate for that particular recipient. Hopefully, he or she could win a lawsuit, forcing a change in policies’ terms.
