Man obtains US$10million award from insurance company for cancelling policy

Man obtains US$10million award from insurance company for cancelling policy

South Carolina man Jerome Mitchell was 17 and about to go to college. He needed to get health insurance as his mother’s health insurance policy no longer covered him. He was asked on the form whether he had ever been diagnosed or treated for an autoimmune disease, and correctly answered “no”. He was then covered for health insurance.

About a year later, when Mr Mitchell went to donate blood, he discovered that he was HIV positive. He made a claim on his health insurance policy. The insurer instead cancelled the policy because, it said, he failed to properly disclose, at the time of entering into the policy, that he did in fact have HIV.

The insurance company did this because there was a note in Mr Mitchell’s medical chart that stated that he had HIV. This note was written after the news came from the Red Cross about his HIV status, when Mr Mitchell then sought confirmation from his doctor, but was incorrectly dated the year before- it was therefore dated before Mr Mitchell applied for health insurance. It was clear, overwhelmingly, that the entry in the medical record was wrongly dated, but the insurance company relied on the date to cancel the policy.

At trial, the evidence against the insurance company was damning:

At trial, Mitchell’s insurance expert testified that it was [the company’s] practice to shut down an investigation once a single piece of evidence was discovered that would support rescission. Further, Mitchell introduced testimony from [the company’s] manager of underwriting and correspondence …who testified that she was “not able to answer” whether she or any of her employees “had a responsibility to find out the truth” about a policyholder’s medical conditions. On cross-examination, [the company’s] insurance expert conceded that an insurance company has a duty to investigate and find information that may lead to payment of a claim.

At trial, Mr Mitchell obtained an award of damages form the jury, including punitive damages, of US$15 million. The insurer appealed. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the appeal in part, reducing damages to US$10 million.

Request an Appointment
Fill in the form below to find out if you have a claim.
Request an Appointment - Stephen Page
Things to Read, Watch & Listen

Parenting plans vs consent orders explained

When parents separate, one of the most important questions is how arrangements for children will be recorded. Will the agreement be kept flexible through a parenting plan, or formalised in legally binding consent orders? There is no single answer that suits every family. The right option depends on the level of trust between parents, the… Read More »Parenting plans vs consent orders explained

Sperm donor family limit in Queensland explained

Queensland’s new sperm donor family limit was intended to create clarity, consistency and better access to donor sperm. Instead, guidance issued to IVF clinics has produced a result that appears to halve donor access for many lesbian couples. The legislation provides for a 10-family limit. Yet where two women are in a couple and seek… Read More »Sperm donor family limit in Queensland explained

NSW fertility inquiry: surrogacy evidence under scrutiny

The New South Wales Legislative Council fertility inquiry is examining difficult and practical questions about access to assisted reproductive treatment. Distance matters. Cost matters. Regulation matters. For many people trying to create a family, these are not abstract policy concerns. They can determine whether treatment is available at all. Among the issues before the inquiry… Read More »NSW fertility inquiry: surrogacy evidence under scrutiny

Family Law Section Law Council of Australia Award
Member of Queensland law society
Family law Practitioners Association
International Academy of Family Lawyers - IAFL
Mediator Standards Board