BENTON - A Lockheed Martin employee claims she was unjustly denied death benefits allowed under an insurance plan to certain workers.
Alvetta Karen Hall, who works at the company's O'Fallon facility, filed suit April 19 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois over the denial of benefits following the death of her husband, Dennis.
She named as defendants her employer and the Prudential Insurance Company, which declined to comment on the lawsuit.
The complaint states that one Dec. 26, 2016, the plaintiff enrolled in the dependent's optional life insurance plan. which allows for the payment of benefit if the named individual on the policy dies from any cause other than suicide.
Hall picked a death benefit equal to 200 percent of her pay, which was just over $50,000 at the time. The coverage was effective on Jan. 1, 2017. Her spouse died in April.
On July 31, 2018, the claim was denied, with Prudential stating the “evidence of insurability was not completed.”
According to the denial letter, "When an employee or dependent applies for life coverage in excess of the non-medical maximum, after the initial eligibility period, he/she may be considered a late entrant and may be required to provide evidence of insurability (EOI).”
However, the plaintiff argues that the "plain language" of the insurance policy and the guidelines states that such evidence "is not required when an employee selects dependent life insurance coverage in the amount of 200% of salary." She claims she exhausted all administrative appeals prior to filing the court action.
"In denying Death Benefits under the life insurance policy, Prudential, acting as a fiduciary in the administration of Karen’s claim, failed to adequately consider the facts and circumstances," the complaint states.
The plaintiff adds that after her spouse died, Prudential contacted Lockheed Martin to find out if she was covered. Lockheed Martin told Prudential that she was not.
"By its actions and misrepresentations, LMC and its agents misled Prudential," the lawsuit states.
Hall is claiming a violation of the Employee Income Security Act and is asking for the amount she alleges is owed under the insurance plan - just over $100,000 - plus costs and attorney fees.
The plaintiff seeks a judgment against both defendants and a declaration of her rights under the plan. She is represented by Matthew R. Davis of Gallagher Davis of St. Louis.