Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

PSA: Disability Insurance">PSA: Disability Insurance

Insur­ance com­pa­nies sell this stuff called “dis­abil­ity insur­ance.” The book­ies at the insur­ance com­pany will make a bet with you: that you will not become dis­abled. If they win and you don’t become dis­abled, you lose the money you’ve paid them. If you win, they pay you a monthly stipend whilst you are disabled.

Insurance-company book­ies know odds. For them, finan­cially, dis­abil­ity insur­ance is a good bet. The chance you will become dis­abled, mul­ti­pled by the ben­e­fits they will pay if that hap­pens, is smaller than the pre­mium you will pay. Which means that for you, finan­cially, dis­abil­ity insur­ance is a bad bet.

Four Hous­ton criminal-defense lawyers have suf­fered crip­pling strokes in recent years. Amer­i­cans have about 795,000 strokes a year (I don’t know if lawyers are more sus­cep­ti­ble to stroke than oth­ers, but seden­tary occu­pa­tion + lots of stress = good can­di­date for stroke.). When a trial lawyer has a stroke, it’s like a laborer los­ing a leg or an arti­san los­ing a hand—she might even­tu­ally recover her earn­ing capac­ity, but it’s going to be a long hard road. 

The ben­e­fit of hav­ing that money when you need it most des­per­ately could (assum­ing that you don’t have sav­ings to burn through dur­ing your reha­bil­i­ta­tion) be more than just finan­cial. For the lawyer who’s had a stroke, dis­abil­ity insur­ance might keep the lights on, or keep the mort­gage paid, or give some breath­ing room to a spouse reen­ter­ing the workforce.

So if you don’t already have a plan in the event of a stroke or other debil­i­tat­ing inci­dent or acci­dent, do your­self, and your loved ones a favor. Put “get dis­abil­ity insur­ance” on your list of things to do.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

4 Responses to “PSA: Disability Insurance”

  1. Ron in Houston says:

    Along the same lines, Aflac is another wor­thy invest­ment. In some ways its bet­ter because it pays ben­e­fits based upon life events rather than a total or par­tial dis­abil­ity. We lawyers are funny peo­ple, we see really bad things hap­pen yet seem to think they won’t hap­pen to us.

  2. Josh Considine says:

    It’s not a bad bet at all: you’re buy­ing pre­dictabil­ity, not invest­ing for a pos­i­tive return.

  3. Jack Abug says:

    Some­thing to bear in mind — albeit more for peo­ple who are nei­ther them­selves lawyers nor blessed with friends or fam­ily mem­bers who are — is that part of the gam­ble insur­ers make amounts to, ‘how often will we be able to get away with pay­ing out less than promised, or even noth­ing at all, on this policy?’

    I know rather a lot about this, hav­ing had short-term dis­abil­ity insur­ance pro­vided along with health insur­ance by my for­mer employer. When I devel­oped mul­ti­ple scle­ro­sis and lost my abil­ity to work, the dis­abil­ity insur­ance provider went to great lengths to delay even mak­ing a response to my claim, so that, after I’d used up all my sick and vaca­tion days for the year, I had no income. I did at least still tech­ni­cally have my job held for me, thanks to the FMLA, and my health insur­ance… until I was informed via cer­ti­fied mail from my for­mer employer, approx­i­mately six months after my onset, that because the dis­abil­ity insur­ance com­pany had denied my claim, they had con­cluded that I had no busi­ness not com­ing to work and were there­fore ter­mi­nat­ing my employment.

    (Here I’ll note in pass­ing that my for­mer employer’s response to a let­ter from my then-physician stat­ing that I might be able to work if one or both of two spe­cific accom­mo­da­tions were made, but that absent those accom­mo­da­tions I remained unable to return to work, was to tell me that I had to return to work because the doctor’s let­ter said I could, even though they refused to imple­ment any accom­mo­da­tions. How much any of this has to do with the fact that the head of HR for my for­mer employer was suf­fer­ing from either moderately-advanced Alzheimers or some sim­i­lar memory-afflicting con­di­tion is unclear to me, but it is only fair to point out that their malfea­sance was more likely the result of incom­pe­tence than malice.)

    I did still have the option of pay­ing sev­eral hun­dred dol­lars out-of-pocket per month to con­tinue my insur­ance cov­er­age, and I did so for sev­eral months despite already being at neg­a­tive house­hold income. The main rea­son I did so was that, at that point, I still did not have a con­firmed diag­no­sis, and wouldn’t get one until nearly a year later. That may sound sus­pi­cious to the aver­age layper­son; cer­tainly it seems that it sounded sus­pi­cious to my for­mer employer that after months of see­ing var­i­ous doc­tors and under­go­ing var­i­ous tests I still hadn’t been given a spe­cific diag­no­sis. But MS is only one of DOZENS of ill­nesses, most of which can strike with­out prior warn­ing, whose AVERAGE onset-to-diagnosis time is mea­sured in YEARS. I actu­ally received a diag­no­sis more quickly than most peo­ple in my situation!

    I’m fairly cer­tain that I could have fought the disability-insurance provider and even­tu­ally pre­vailed, and prob­a­bly also fought the ter­mi­na­tion of my employ­ment and even­tu­ally prevailed.

    But part of what disability-insurance com­pa­nies base their gam­bles on is the fact that when they refuse to pay a valid claim like mine, the per­son mak­ing the claim is phys­i­cally, emo­tion­ally and finan­cially exhausted by the time they admit that they’re refus­ing to pay (not merely delay­ing pay­ment). I could barely walk across a small room, and even sit­ting in a chair was dif­fi­cult. My pri­or­ity was seek­ing that diag­no­sis, and (hope­fully) then being able to receive appro­pri­ate treat­ment for what was actu­ally wrong, and MAYBE then pur­su­ing the enti­ties who had taken advan­tage of my misfortune.

    Dur­ing all of this time, my now-ex-spouse and I were also deal­ing with try­ing to keep our util­i­ties on and our bank from fore­clos­ing on our house (this all hap­pened years before the hous­ing bub­ble) and try­ing to secure replace­ment income in the form of state and fed­eral ben­e­fits for me, and a sec­ond “part-time” 35-hour-a-week job for my now-ex despite our one vehi­cle being our only means of get­ting me to med­ical appointments.

    I’m aware that in many cases dis­abil­ity insur­ance is indeed instru­men­tal in help­ing peo­ple struck by sud­den ill­ness or injury not to lose their sav­ings, homes, et cetera. But any­one con­sid­er­ing tak­ing out such a pol­icy should also be aware that doing so does not ENSURE that they will receive the expected and con­tracted assis­tance if or when it becomes needed…

    • Mark Bennett says:

      Yes. This is why I occa­sion­ally think that, if I wanted to quit the criminal-defense racket and make some real money, suing insur­ance com­pa­nies would be a right­eous blast.

Leave a non-anonymous Reply