Past Results

At the Law Offices of Steven M. Dunn, P.A., we have shifted our focus to meet the rising demand for representation in long term care (LTC) insurance claims among the elderly. We are committed to making sure you receive the benefits you are entitled to. Examples of long-term care insurance claims we have or are currently handling include:

Past successes also include:

  • A Long-Term Care Insurance company paid $975,000 after wrongfully denying a claim for long-term care benefits for a man residing in an assisted living facility.
  • A Long-Term Care insurance company paid $250,000 after wrongfully denying a claim for long-term care benefits to a man residing in an assisted living facility.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance company paid $125,000 and agreed to pay $90 per day to a man for home health care he received while residing in an assisted living facility.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance company paid $268,000 and agreed to pay benefits for life to a woman who had a policy with an inflation rider that the company failed to properly apply.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance company paid $130,000 and a minimum of $100,000 in future benefits to a 98 year old woman whose benefits were cut-off when the company failed to properly apply an inflation rider.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company paid a 95 year old woman $100,000 and at least $100,000 in future benefits whose benefits were cut-off when the company failed to properly apply an inflation rider.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company paid $126,500 to a woman who moved into an assisted living facility after the company initially refused to cover the cost of care she received from the facility. Additionally, the company agreed to pay 70% of the cost of the assisted living facility for the rest of her life.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company paid a woman $100,000 after refusing to honor the restoration of benefits clause in her insurance policy. The restoration clause was interpreted by the company to require the insured to be “treatment free” for 180 consecutive days in order for the policy benefits to fully restore. The company took the position, if an insured took a a pill or attended a regularly scheduled doctor appointment, that constituted “treatment”. Therefore, under that interpretation, given the ages of the insureds, virtually no policy could restore.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company paid a woman $86,650 for wrongfully converting her policy to a non-forfeiture option where she should have been receiving benefits while residing in an assisted living facility. If the company had properly paid benefits, she would have been entitled to a waiver of her premium payments. Therefore, she should not have been asked to convert her policy to a non-forfeiture status.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to restore policy benefits to an 86 year old woman who needed full time care and was paying out of pocket in excess of $700 per week. The reinstatement has a potential value of $200,000.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to reinstate a woman’s policy after lapsing it for non-payment of premiums. Based on a Florida Statute that provides for reinstatement if the non-payment was due to a medical condition that prevented the insured form dealing with her affairs, we were able to establish that the non-payment was due to a cognitive problem that affected our client’s memory. The reinstatement has a value in excess $150,000.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to cover the cost of care for a woman living in an assisted living facility. The settlement is valued in excess of $200,000. The company had to pay attorney fees as well under a Florida Statute that provides for fee when an insured person is successful in a claim for insurance benefits that are wrongfully denied.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to pay benefits of $100,000 for a man residing in assisted living facility where benefits were initially denied. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the company as well.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to pay benefits valued at approximately $200,000 for a woman residing in an assisted living facility where benefits were initially denied. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the insurance company as well.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to pay benefits valued in excess of $240,000 for a woman residing in an assisted living facility where benefits were initially denied. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the insurance company as well.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to pay benefits valued in excess of $225,000 for a man residing in an assisted living facility where benefits were initially denied. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the insurance company as well.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to pay benefits valued in excess of $260,000 for a woman residing in an assisted living facility where benefits were initially denied. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the insurance company as well.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to restore policy benefits after an initial denial. The company claimed the client’s policy did not qualify for restoration of benefits because she allegedly received medical treatment (injections of insulin) during the restoration period. Ultimately, after suit was filed, the company agreed to restore the policy. Our client is now receiving benefits. The settlement is worth approximately $230,000. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the insurance company as well.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed to pay benefits valued in excess of $200,000 for a man residing in an assisted living facility where benefits were initially denied. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the insurance company as well.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed, after an initial denial, to pay past and future benefits valued in excess of $250,000 for an 85 year old woman who needed full time care. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the insurance company as well.
  • A Long-Term Care Insurance Company agreed, after an initial denial, to pay past and future benefits valued in excess of $250,000 for an 84 year old woman who needed full time care. The denial was based on an alleged lapse of the policy because our client did not meet the requirements for a waiver of premium and according to the company the premiums went unpaid. Her particular policy required that she receive a certain amount of days of care per week in order for the waiver of premium provision to apply. However, because the policy failed to define when a week began for the purposes of the provision, the denial could not hold up. Attorney fees and costs were paid by the insurance company as well.