Results

Stacy won a victory in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Gustafson-Feis v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 535 F. Supp. 3d 1076 (W.D. Wash. 2021). The court agreed that Reliance Standard had failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the question of whether the insured’s disabling injury was caused by a pre-existing condition.

Stacy won victories against both Prudential Insurance (Hamilton v. Logic20/20, Inc., No. C24-916RSL, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266757, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2025) and the plaintiff’s employer, Logic 20/20 (Hamilton v. Logic20/20, Inc., No. C24-916RSL, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 266756, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2025), when the court agreed with Stacy that she could bring suit against both the insurer and the employer for their failure to correctly insure the plaintiff. When the plaintiff began working at Logic 20/20, she was only 25 years old and her employer instructed her to stay on her parents’ insurance until she turned 26. Logic 20/20 did not explain to her that by failing to sign up for benefits when hired, she would help Logic 20/20 by saving it money on premiums but would hurt herself, as she would be subject to Prudential’s requirement for Evidence of Insurability (EOI) if she didn’t sign up for benefits within 30 days of her hire date. Plaintiff believed that she signed up for all benefits when she turned 26, and was charged premiums for her disability insurance for over two years before contracting COVID and filing a claim. Prudential refused to pay the claim, telling her that she was never covered because she had not submitted EOI even though Prudential accepted premium payments for years. The contract between Logic 20/20 and Prudential stated that both entities were responsible for determining eligibility, and Logic 20/20’s own documents confirmed that dozens of employees had been charged premiums for insurance coverage without providing EOI, meaning that Prudential accepted those premiums without ever insuring them. Prudential had already been forced by the Department of Labor to admit its illegal practices when it similarly took premiums without required EOI in the life insurance context, knowing that the employers were not collecting the needed information. The settlement with the Department of Labor requires Prudential to accept responsibility for coverage for an insured who paid at least three months of coverage for life insurance without submitting the required EOI. Judge Lasnik of the Western District of Washington held that Plaintiff could similarly seek to hold both Prudential and Logic 20/20, as the claims administrator and plan administrator, responsible for the same failures in the disability insurance context. The court also agreed that Logic 20/20 would be responsible for fines under ERISA for failing to provide all contracts related to Plaintiff’s disability insurance when asked.

Stacy successfully resolved her client’s lawsuit against Prudential for wrongfully terminating disability benefits. The plaintiff was a software engineer for Microsoft when he became disabled. Stacy filed suit for the termination of his benefits, and for miscalculating the value of his monthly benefits by failing to include the value of his stock awards in the twelve months prior to his disability. The settlement amount is confidential, but the complaint is public and can be read here.

Stacy won in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Life Insurance Company of America in  Wolf v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 541 F. Supp. 3d 1191, 1193 (W.D. Wash. 2021), aff’d, 46 F.4th 979 (9th Cir. 2022). The court concluded that the death of the insured in a drunk driving accident was indeed an accident under the policy and not “a foreseeable outcome of his voluntary actions,” as the insurer insisted. The Ninth Circuit upheld the win.

Stacy won an important motion against Unum Group in Lieberman v. Unum Grp., No. 520CV1798JGBSPX, 2021 WL 4807643, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). This motion forced Unum to produce confidential board minutes, committee reports, financial documents related to Unum’s long-term care book of business, personnel records, and contracts between Unum and its third-party medical reviewers. This win directly led to Unum agreeing to settle the case for a very favorable, though confidential, amount rather than reveal the court-ordered documents.