MetLife, Prudential and Unum Insurance have settled with the San Diego DA's office over their alleged payments in the hundreds of thousands to an insurance broker to send business their way. Universal Life Resources (ULR) was contracted to get the best insurance value for life, disability, and health insurance by large businesses for their employees. Instead, the suit claims, ULR got payments to funnel business to the insurers. The settlement calls for the insurers to pay a total of $1.1 million, which will fund more public enforcement of fair competition cases.

DA Announces $1.1 Million Settlement With Insurance Companies Accused of Secret Payments (PDF) [Press Release]

(Photo: Getty)

Fast forward to May and Lindsey receives a nice letter in the mail from MetLife stating that because of a "Policy Change" she would have to pay an additional $70 dollars. She was a little confused because the guy at the dealership said she wouldn't have to spend an extra penny until after the 9 months. The same day, she called MetLife and the guy on the other line said that he'd "take care of it." Problem solved? Yeah right...."

A month later, she gets another notice, this time for $95. So this time she goes back to the dealership, to the guy that originally sold her the insurance. He gets on the phone with the same guy that "took care of it" last time and says it was a big misunderstanding but he'll take off the charges.

The next month, she gets another bill stating that show now owes $70. After getting this in the mail, we promptly headed over to the dealership and talked to the guy that sold her the original insurance. He appeared to be as surprised as we were at the mysterious charge on the statement. After a brief phone call to the same guy, Lindsey is assured that its all taken care of. End of story? nooo...

Lindsey gets another notice in the mail stating that if she didn't pay this charge, her account would be dropped. So with the prospect of not being insured, she gets on the phone with MetLife again. (Has anyone ever mentioned how long it takes to talk to someone on the phone there??) So she proceeds to talk to Ted and explain the situation, he says that the charge was from a previous insurer's discount and it would be taken off and she would be "squared away." Not his exact words.

According to Murphy's Law (as well as Consumerist Law), if something could possibly go wrong, it most likely will go wrong. Like...a car accident...

Over the past 3 months that I've been living with Lindsey, she has also let me drive her car when I I've needed it. Since this is a temporary living situation, she did not consider to cover me on her insurance. Bad move number one. Then, I got in a minor side swipe accident. The damage was more severe on my car, than hers, but I took full responsibility. The swipe left a nice 8" red streak on her suv and a small dent on Lindsey's red Yaris.

Now heres the kicker, after contacting MetLife to get a quote for the damage, they said that they normally would be able to cover her and the suv's damage, but since they dropped Lindsey for a week after she didn't pay the bill, they wouldn't be able to. The best they could offer was that they would be able to put her back on her policy in a couple days, which wouldn't cover any previous damages.

Now the owner of the suv is demanding $1000 for the supposed damage (the red streak) and we don't have an insurance company to get an honest quote on the damages.

Great, thanks a lot MetLife. All Lindsey got for her $900 was a false sense of security. What good is insurance if they conveniently drop your coverage during an accident??

Sorry the story is so long. Thanks for all your help in the past.

Sincerely,
Jeremy

No doubt he was still trying to figure out how the insurance coverage worked...

(Photo: imorgan73)

Tim writes:

Metlife supposedly has very high standards for the dentists they select for the clients -myself- to select from..... It seems these professionals would be well versed in Metlife's payment protocols......

After one dentist delayed in removing one tooth, I lost another tooth and that being part of a bridge cause me to loose a third tooth. The company details of the dental plan state implants can be used for single tooth replacement or a lifetime total of four to hold a denture to replace all upper or lower teeth.

I quit that dentist -

The next dentist tried pushing a retainer with teeth attached on me after I had repeatedly told her no retainer with teeth - implants or nothing. She proceeded with getting the retainer and after shoving the "we can yank whatever and ruin whatever in your mouth waiver" I got irritated and she terminated the business relationship.
I contacted the credit card company - they removed the charges. I contacted Metlife and they were full of reasons why they cannot remove the charges. After several phone calls they removed most of the charges - but put one back on my account.

After that I found a decent dentist. He recommended a periodontist to provide the implants. The periodontist contacted Metlife for my insurance coverage and Metlife responded with a fax that shows coverage, but not the details - coverage for up to four implants, but not under any particular conditions. Now Metlife has come up with many versions of why they can refuse to pay - one says I should have gotten a pre-assessment, then next says a pre-assessment does not mean anything - it is subject to change, one says single tooth replacement means only one tooth, not replacing one tooth and then two more teeth.

I am not a dentist - I and the general public have to rely on the professionals to work with the insurance professionals. When an insurance company pulls this underhanded, vindictive behavior - there is something wrong!

An industry that needs streamlining if there ever was. It used to be that people lost teeth because of lack of dental care. Now they're losing them because of it. — BEN POPKEN