The Standard Insurance Company Denial Lawyer

The Standard Insurance Denial Attorney | California Policyholder Representation

The Standard Insurance Company insurance claimsStandard Insurance Company terminated your long-term disability benefits. You received a denial letter citing a paper review by a physician who never examined you, contradicting years of treating physician records. That conduct — relying on biased medical opinions to discontinue benefits without a full and fair investigation — constitutes unreasonable claims handling under California law and may support a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Policyholders in California have recovered substantial compensation, including punitive damages, when Standard Insurance engages in this pattern of claims abuse.

Pillsbury & Coleman, LLP represents California policyholders exclusively against insurance companies. The Standard Insurance denial attorney team at this firm has litigated directly against Standard Insurance Company (StanCorp Financial Group, Inc.) in federal court, winning a published opinion in the Northern District of California holding that Standard abused its discretion in terminating an ERISA disability claim. Since 1991, the firm has recovered over $1 billion for policyholders across California denied the benefits they paid for and were entitled to receive.

Standard Insurance Company, a brand of StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. The company was founded in the early 1900s and began issuing group insurance policies in the 1950s. Today, Standard Insurance markets group life, long-term disability, short-term disability, and other policies covering more than 7 million U.S. employees. Standard also sells individual disability income policies and life insurance products. When Standard Insurance wrongfully denies or terminates a claim, California policyholders have legal remedies under state bad faith law, Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03, and, for employer-sponsored plans, under ERISA § 502(a).

Why Standard Insurance Claims Require Specialized Policyholder Counsel

Standard Insurance Company issues both individual disability policies governed by California state law and employer-sponsored group policies governed by ERISA. The applicable legal framework determines the remedies available to a denied policyholder, and the analysis is not straightforward. Under ERISA, Standard often receives discretionary authority under its plan documents, triggering the abuse of discretion standard of review in federal court. Under that standard, a reviewing court defers to Standard’s benefit determination unless it is arbitrary and capricious — a demanding threshold that rewards thorough administrative record development before litigation begins.

Where ERISA discretion language is absent or enforceable under state law, courts may apply de novo review, examining the claim without deference to Standard’s decision. California policyholders holding individual disability policies retain full state law remedies, including consequential damages, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages unavailable under ERISA. Identifying which standard applies — and building the administrative record accordingly — requires a firm that handles nothing else.

Standard Insurance has documented claims-handling patterns that policyholder counsel must anticipate. The company has relied on independent medical examinations (IMEs) conducted by physicians whose opinions consistently favor denial. It has commissioned functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) that fail to account for a claimant’s specific occupational demands. It has applied the any-occupation definition of disability prematurely, before the policy’s own-occupation period expires, to terminate benefits for professionals who remain unable to perform their specific occupational duties. Standard has also required excessive documentation and conducted extended surveillance campaigns — including in the nationally reported case of a Florida accountant with multiple sclerosis whose claim was denied based on the opinion of a physician he had never seen, contradicting eleven treating physicians.

Pillsbury & Coleman examines the administrative record, identifies bias in Standard’s retained medical reviewers, and builds the evidentiary record necessary to challenge Standard’s claims-handling practices — whether in an ERISA administrative appeal, in federal court, or in California state court under the full remedies available for bad faith.

google icon

We will remain forever grateful to each and every one you

“You truly make a difference in people’s lives because you do not just win cases, you do not just get judgments collected, you actually put lives back together and help heal wounds. More importantly, I believe for all the long hours you put, your significant others should see what a difference you m...

Mehran Imanabadi

Mar 26, 2025
google icon

The “go-to” firm for bad faith insurance coverage issues

“As part of an in-house legal team, I look for smart, capable and no-nonsense outside counsel to guide me on critical issues. Pillsbury & Coleman’s attorneys proved to be all of the above. They crafted a creative and insightful strategy for my case that convinced me they were the go-to firm for bad f...

Bill Friedman, In-house Counsel, CISCO

Mar 26, 2025
google icon

Always there for me no matter what!

“I can’t thank you enough for what you have done for me. I am so grateful that I had you helping me with this most difficult time of my life. You were always there for me no matter what and I deeply appreciate it.”

Peter Englert

Mar 26, 2025
google icon

I can’t thank all of you enough!

“You have to hear this a lot. You folks are life changers in people’s lives. I can’t thank you enough and as a client, I believe you deserve every dime you got. I am writing this and thinking of my first calls of desperation to the four or five firms I found on Google. My favorite was the last attor...

Stuart Pressman

Mar 26, 2025

Pillsbury & Coleman, LLP — Exclusive Policyholder Representation Since 1991

Pillsbury & Coleman is one of California’s only law firms focused exclusively on representing policyholders against insurance companies. The firm does not represent insurance carriers. Every case the firm accepts is on behalf of a policyholder whose claim has been wrongfully denied, delayed, or terminated.

  • Founded 1991 — over three decades of exclusive policyholder representation in California
  • Over $1 billion recovered for policyholders
  • Largest disability insurance bad faith verdict in California history
  • $32 million verdict against UnumProvident Corporation
  • $26.5 million verdict against The Travelers Insurance Company
  • Published federal court opinion against Standard Insurance Company in the Northern District of California — Oster v. Standard Insurance Company
  • Attorneys’ fees award in Oster v. Standard Insurance Company; partner Terrence J. Coleman recognized as an ERISA expert by the N.D. Cal.
  • Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent rated attorneys
  • Named to Best Lawyers in America and Super Lawyers
  • Members: American College of Coverage Counsel (ACCC)
  • National practice: California policyholders represented statewide in state and federal courts, including N.D. Cal., C.D. Cal., and the Ninth Circuit

Standard Insurance Company — Case Result

Federal Court Trial Win & Attorneys’ Fees Award | Oster v. Standard Insurance Company, United States District Court, Northern District of California (Hon. Saundra Armstrong)

Defendant: Standard Insurance Company, a group disability insurer and subsidiary of StanCorp Financial Group, Inc.

Bad Faith / Unreasonable Claims Handling Proven: Standard Insurance terminated ERISA long-term disability benefits owed to a computer programmer who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a serious automobile accident. Standard relied on a paper review by one of its retained medical consultants, who concluded — without examining the claimant — that the policyholder’s unsuccessful attempts to return to work demonstrated he was no longer disabled. The court found that Standard abused its discretion by using biased physicians to override the disability assessments of the policyholder’s treating physicians, in violation of Standard’s obligations under ERISA § 503 and its duty to conduct a full and fair review of the administrative record.

Recovery: Pillsbury & Coleman prevailed at trial. The Hon. Saundra Armstrong of the N.D. Cal. issued a published opinion finding Standard abused its discretion in terminating benefits. Pillsbury & Coleman also prevailed on the attorneys’ fees motion, resulting in a published opinion in which partner Terrence J. Coleman was recognized as an ERISA expert by the Northern District of California. Full reinstatement of disability benefits was ordered.

View additional disability insurance case results on the firm’s Disability Insurance Results page.

What Constitutes Wrongful Denial of Benefits by Standard Insurance Company

The following Standard Insurance claims-handling practices give rise to liability for wrongful denial of benefits and, where intentional or systematic, may support claims for punitive damages:

  • Terminating long-term disability benefits based on a paper review of medical records by a physician who never examined the claimant, in contradiction to the opinions of treating physicians
  • Relying on IME or FCE opinions from physicians retained exclusively by Standard Insurance, whose compensation depends on continued referrals and whose reports systematically favor denial
  • Applying the any-occupation definition of disability before the policy’s own-occupation period has expired, to terminate benefits for professionals unable to perform the material duties of their specific occupation
  • Failing to account for the claimant’s specific occupational demands — including standing tolerance, fine motor requirements, sustained cognitive function, and high-stakes patient or client responsibility — when evaluating functional capacity
  • Using surveillance footage of ordinary daily activities (driving, walking short distances, attending a medical appointment) to override documented medical evidence of disability
  • Delaying payment of disability benefits beyond 40 days without issuing a written explanation, in violation of Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03(h), for policies governed by California state law
  • Issuing a reservation of rights letter under a group policy without disclosing the specific grounds for coverage dispute
  • For ERISA plans: failing to provide a claimant with all documents, records, and other information relevant to the claim upon request under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(2)(iii)
  • Constructing denial rationales after the administrative record closes that were not disclosed to the claimant during the appeal period, depriving the claimant of the opportunity to respond
  • Setting monthly or quarterly claims termination targets that incentivize claims staff to deny or terminate valid claims without regard to medical evidence — a practice Standard’s parent company StanCorp has faced scrutiny over

The Standard Insurance Claims Process — What Policyholders Face

Initiating a Standard Insurance Disability Claim. Policyholders submit an initial claim package to Standard Insurance that includes an employer statement, an attending physician’s statement, and an occupational description detailing job duties, physical demands, and earnings. Standard may accept the claim, request additional documentation, or delay and deny.

Many Standard denials occur not at the initial stage but after 12 to 24 months — precisely when the policy’s definition of disability shifts from the own-occupation standard to the any-occupation standard, triggering a higher evidentiary threshold that Standard exploits to terminate long-term benefits.

Responding to a Standard Insurance Denial. Standard’s denial letters typically cite insufficient medical evidence, a change in the policy’s definition of disability, or a determination that the claimant can perform sedentary or light-duty work. Policyholders covered by an employer-sponsored plan must exhaust ERISA’s mandatory administrative appeal process before filing suit — a critical step with strict deadlines that, if missed, forfeits all federal court remedies.

Policyholders with individual disability policies issued directly by Standard may have different procedural obligations under their policy’s dispute resolution terms. Retaining a Standard Insurance denial attorney before submitting an appeal is essential; the administrative record compiled at the appeal stage becomes the evidentiary record in federal court, and evidence not submitted during the appeal generally cannot be introduced later.

The ERISA Administrative Appeal. A properly constructed ERISA appeal against Standard Insurance requires more than a letter from a treating physician. It requires a point-by-point refutation of Standard’s stated grounds for denial, submission of supplemental medical records, independent medical opinions, functional capacity and vocational evidence, and — where applicable — evidence of IME physician bias and Standard’s internal claims-handling guidelines. The appeal must comply with Standard’s deadline, typically 180 days from the denial notice under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1. Failure to comply forecloses litigation. The complexity of this process requires counsel experienced in ERISA § 502(a) litigation.

Litigating Against Standard Insurance Company. When Standard Insurance denies a claim on appeal or fails to reinstate benefits, litigation proceeds in federal or state court depending on the policy type. ERISA cases are filed in federal district court under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) to recover the full policy benefits.

For individual disability policies governed by California law, the firm files breach of contract and bad faith claims in California Superior Court or federal court, seeking compensatory damages, consequential damages, Brandt attorney fees, and — where the evidence supports — punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. Preservation of all claims correspondence, denial letters, medical records, and policy documents from the moment of denial is essential to the litigation record.

Pillsbury & Coleman’s Litigation Record Against Standard Insurance

Policyholder problems due to The Standard’s claim handling and denial practices were widely exposed in a 2009 Good Morning America story about a case in Florida. An accountant with multiple sclerosis was denied disability benefits based on the opinion of a doctor he had never seen, contradicting the opinions of 11 other physicians.

Pillsbury & Coleman won a published federal court trial decision against Standard Insurance Company in Oster v. Standard Insurance Company before the Honorable Saundra Armstrong in the Northern District of California. Standard terminated the ERISA long-term disability benefits of a computer programmer who suffered a traumatic brain injury, relying on a paper review by a retained medical consultant who never examined the claimant.

The court held that Standard abused its discretion in terminating benefits by using biased physicians to override the treating physicians’ disability assessments. Pillsbury & Coleman also prevailed on the attorneys’ fees motion, resulting in a published opinion recognizing partner Terrence J. Coleman as an ERISA expert. The firm has also pursued claims against Standard and similar carriers for excessive documentation demands, extended delays in violation of Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03(h), and failure to conduct a full and fair investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions — Standard Insurance Claim Denials in California

For individual disability policies governed by California law, the statute of limitations is generally two years from the date of the wrongful denial under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1, subject to any shorter suit limitations clause in the policy itself — which courts may enforce if reasonable. For Standard Insurance ERISA group disability plans, federal courts apply the limitations period specified in the plan, or a state analog where the plan is silent; in California, this is often three years, but the deadline runs from when the claim is repudiated, not when benefits cease. Contact a Standard Insurance denial attorney promptly — administrative appeal deadlines under ERISA are as short as 180 days and cannot be extended.

California law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every insurance contract. When Standard Insurance denies, delays, or terminates a claim without a reasonable basis — or without conducting a thorough, unbiased investigation — it breaches that covenant, constituting insurance bad faith. Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03(h) identifies specific prohibited claims practices, including failing to adopt and implement reasonable claims settlement standards, failing to promptly acknowledge and act on communications, and misrepresenting facts or policy provisions. A successful bad faith claim against Standard Insurance allows a policyholder to recover not only the denied policy benefits but also consequential damages and attorney fees under Brandt v. Superior Court — and, where malice, oppression, or fraud is established, punitive damages.

Punitive damages are available against Standard Insurance in California state court actions for bad faith — including claims under individual disability policies not governed by ERISA. California requires clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. Evidence that Standard set claims termination quotas, used financially conflicted medical reviewers, or disregarded treating physician evidence in order to deny a valid claim can satisfy that standard. Pillsbury & Coleman has pursued punitive damages in insurance bad faith cases, including a $31.7 million jury verdict — subsequently reduced on post-trial motions — against an insurer that engaged in comparable claims denial practices.

If your Standard Insurance disability policy is provided through an employer as a benefit of employment, it is almost certainly governed by ERISA — the federal law that preempts state bad faith remedies and limits recovery to the unpaid benefits plus attorney fees in limited circumstances. If you purchased your disability policy directly from Standard Insurance as an individual — independent of any employer plan — your claim is governed by California law, which provides a substantially broader set of remedies including punitive damages. The distinction is critical to your case strategy. Pillsbury & Coleman handles both ERISA and state law disability claims against Standard Insurance Company.

An independent medical examination (IME) required by Standard Insurance is conducted by a physician retained and compensated by the insurer, not truly independent. Standard has a documented practice of using IME physicians whose opinions consistently support denial or termination of claims. You have the right to bring an observer to the examination, and you should request a copy of the examining physician's prior reports for Standard Insurance to evaluate whether a pattern of insurer-favorable findings exists. Standard cannot use a single IME to override years of consistent treating physician records without a substantive explanation. Where Standard's IME physician contradicts established treating physician opinions without clinical justification, that reliance may constitute unreasonable claims handling under Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03.

Resolution timelines depend on whether the claim involves ERISA or state law, and whether the case requires litigation. An ERISA administrative appeal must be exhausted before filing suit — a process that typically takes 45 to 180 days — and federal court litigation can take one to three years from complaint to judgment. State law bad faith cases often resolve faster in settlement because Standard faces punitive damages exposure. Cases with clear evidence of biased medical reviewers and documented claims-handling violations frequently settle before trial. Pillsbury & Coleman evaluates resolution strategy on a case-by-case basis, including whether Standard's litigation exposure warrants an early demand.

Pillsbury & Coleman typically represents policyholders on a contingency fee basis: there is no attorney fee unless the firm recovers compensation on your behalf. In California bad faith cases involving individual disability policies, attorney fees may also be recoverable from Standard Insurance directly under Brandt v. Superior Court, where the court finds the insurer acted in bad faith — effectively shifting a portion of Standard's legal obligation to pay the fee. For ERISA cases, attorney fees are recoverable under ERISA § 502(g) at the court's discretion. The firm provides a formal case evaluation at no charge.

Preserve the following from the date of denial forward: the denial letter and all accompanying correspondence, the complete Standard Insurance policy or certificate of coverage, all medical records and attending physician statements submitted with the claim, explanation of benefits (EOB) statements, any communications from Standard claims handlers (including voicemails and emails), surveillance notices or requests for authorization, any IME scheduling letters and the physician's report, and the administrative record if you have ERISA rights to request it under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(2)(iii). Do not discard or alter any document. The administrative record in an ERISA case is built before litigation begins, and missing documents cannot be introduced later.

Standard Insurance's ability to terminate benefits based on a finding that you can perform "some work" depends entirely on the definition of disability in your policy. If your Standard Insurance policy — individual or group — provides own-occupation disability coverage, the insurer cannot terminate benefits simply because you can perform work in a different occupation; you are entitled to benefits if you cannot perform the material duties of your own specific occupation. Standard commonly attempts to apply the any-occupation definition before the policy's own-occupation period expires, or improperly classifies a claimant's occupation as broader than it is. If Standard terminated your benefits under an any-occupation rationale while you remain unable to perform your own occupation's material duties, that termination may constitute wrongful denial of benefits.

Standard Insurance Company has been the subject of federal court litigation in California for wrongful termination of ERISA disability benefits. In Oster v. Standard Insurance Company, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a published opinion finding that Standard abused its discretion in terminating a claimant's long-term disability benefits by relying on biased medical reviewers who contradicted treating physicians without clinical justification. Pillsbury & Coleman prevailed at trial and on a subsequent attorneys' fees motion. Standard Insurance has also been the subject of regulatory scrutiny and publicized denial controversies, including the 2009 Good Morning America report on the denial of a multiple sclerosis claimant's benefits based on a non-examining physician's opinion that contradicted eleven treating doctors.

A denial from Standard Insurance is not the final word. California policyholders have meaningful legal rights — and in many cases, strong ones. If you have received a denial letter, a sudden termination of benefits, or a silence that has gone on too long, we can help you understand where you stand.

There is no cost to speak with us, and no attorney fee unless we recover on your behalf. We represent policyholders throughout California — from San Francisco and the Bay Area to Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, and beyond.

(415) 433-8000

Or reach out through our website for a confidential, no-obligation case evaluation. You do not have to face this alone.