Video Library
Auto Technician with Stroke Wins Guardian Disability Appeal
The case involves an auto technician who became totally disabled after suffering a stroke. He could no longer work or function in his occupation and was also approved for Social Security disability benefits. Guardian, which provided long-term disability coverage through his employer, did not dispute the medical basis of his disability. Instead, the dispute centered entirely on how the policy calculated his insured earnings.
The employer had different compensation structures for its employees. Some received a base salary, others received a base salary plus commissions, and the client was compensated entirely through commissions. When Guardian evaluated his long-term disability claim, it determined that the policy provided a benefit equal to 60% of insured earnings but claimed that commissions were excluded from the calculation. Because the client earned no base salary, Guardian effectively calculated his insured earnings as zero and denied payment of disability benefits.
Attorney Caesar Gvidia reviewed the policy and discovered an important distinction in its language. The general definition of insured earnings referred to earnings paid by the employer. Elsewhere, the policy stated that for base-salary employees, insured earnings were based on base salary and excluded commissions, bonuses, and other additional compensation. The client, however, was not a base-salary employee. He was a 100% commission employee, and his compensation records could establish exactly how he had been paid.
The appeal therefore focused on the language of the disability policy rather than the client’s medical condition. Key components included:
- Establishing that the client was compensated entirely through commissions rather than through a base salary.
- Providing compensation records demonstrating how his employer paid him.
- Analyzing the policy’s general definition of insured earnings and the separate language applicable specifically to base-salary employees.
- Arguing that the commission exclusion applicable to base-salary employees did not apply to a worker whose entire compensation consisted of commissions.
- Demonstrating that Guardian’s interpretation would effectively leave a covered employee with no payable disability benefit despite his participation in the employer’s disability plan.
After the appeal was submitted, Guardian agreed with Gvidia’s interpretation. The insurer acknowledged that the client’s commissions should have been included when calculating his insured earnings and overturned its decision. The result entitled the client to substantial long-term disability benefits based on the compensation he had actually earned from his employer.
The issue also exposed a problem with how the employer’s group disability policy addressed commission-based employees. After the claim was resolved, Guardian and the employer revised the disability policy so that employees compensated like the client would have their commission earnings properly reflected when calculating the percentage of income covered by the plan.
The case demonstrates why disability insurance denials are not always disputes over whether a claimant is medically capable of working. Policy definitions, compensation structures, and the specific language used to calculate benefits can determine whether a disabled employee receives the coverage they expected. Disability policies are not all written identically, making it important to analyze the actual contract rather than assuming that an insurer’s interpretation of its standard policy terms is correct.
For this auto technician, carefully examining the distinction between the policy’s general definition of insured earnings and the language specifically applicable to base-salary employees changed the outcome of the claim. Guardian reversed its decision, and the successful appeal resulted in a substantial recovery of disability benefits for a claimant whose medical disability itself had never been in dispute.