My daughter's Godfather is the Justice of the Peace - - he says the same thing we do -- we are married. Unfortunately - I guess I am out of luck as I don't think an insurance company or place of business should be able to change the law to fit their needs. We have been happily married for going on 14 years (and together 19), that's more than most can say. I can only hope for the best. Thank you for your help!!
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Being dropped from Insurance
- Thread starter Tink11464
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
cbg
I'm a Northern Girl
You are still missing the point.
The insurance carrier is not "changing the law". They have a contract with your husband's employer that says x, y and z are legal dependents. They have no legal obligation to cover anyone who is not x, y or z. If common law marriage is not included within x, y or z, then a common law spouse is not covered. They are not obligated to use the same definition of a spouse that the state does. As long as they are staying within the parameters of what their written policy states, they are legal.
The insurance carrier is not "changing the law". They have a contract with your husband's employer that says x, y and z are legal dependents. They have no legal obligation to cover anyone who is not x, y or z. If common law marriage is not included within x, y or z, then a common law spouse is not covered. They are not obligated to use the same definition of a spouse that the state does. As long as they are staying within the parameters of what their written policy states, they are legal.
I guess I am still missing it. So the company can say to the insurance company "we will only insure blondes but no brunettes"? I know that seems absurd - but I'm just trying to say - isn't that a form of discrimnation - - legally in the states eyes we are married - but in the company's eyes we are not (although the company where my "husband" works said to me the reason is because it's not covered because common law marriages aren't legal in PA). The bottom line is - - it IS legal in PA (if acknowledged before 2005). So maybe I'm not getting it because I'm "in it", but do you understand what I mean? The employer (not the insurance company) is saying it's because common law is NOT legal in PA.
No justice of the peace required in PA. Go to your local courthouse and obtain a self-joining (quaker) marriage license, wait the required time (3 days if I recall correctly) sign it in the presence of 2 witnesses, and send it in to the court and you will received your official copy back in a few days. You will be able to be re-added to the policy as of the date the license is signed as long as you submit the necessary enrollment paperwork within 30 days and no pre-existing limitation should be applicable if your gap in coverage is less than 63 days. It really is JUST a piece of paper in this state. Consider it as if you were renewing your vows.
You may also want to obtain a copy of the policy document so you can see the exact wording of the definition of a covered dependent.
You may also want to obtain a copy of the policy document so you can see the exact wording of the definition of a covered dependent.
Beth, the OP feels that they ARE "legally" married per the laws of the state in which she resides. I believe they may very well have been. My earlier response was based on my contempt for people who think that it's just a piece of paper. But, realistically, if they are considered married by the state of PA, and they reside in PA, then there is no fraud involved. The insurance company is wrong.
No, the insurance company isn't wrong. They are not obligated to recognize common law marriages or those couples who "feel" they're married. The carrier and employer get to define who constitutes an eligible dependent. For the great majority of insurance plans, that is the legally wed spouse of the participant and his/her dependent children. (Some employers/plans choose to recognize domestic partners; a very few municipalities require that eligible dependents include same-sex domestic partners.)
The insurance carrier in this case can pursue the employee and OP for fraud if they wish to because the OP's "spouse" signed her up for insurance benefits when she didn't meet the definition of an eligible dependent in the plan. The employer could also terminate the OP's husband if they wished to for falsification of company records.
All that appears is going to happen is that the OP has been dropped from coverage which they ought to thank their lucky stars for.
No, the insurance company isn't wrong. They are not obligated to recognize common law marriages or those couples who "feel" they're married. The carrier and employer get to define who constitutes an eligible dependent. For the great majority of insurance plans, that is the legally wed spouse of the participant and his/her dependent children. (Some employers/plans choose to recognize domestic partners; a very few municipalities require that eligible dependents include same-sex domestic partners.)
The insurance carrier in this case can pursue the employee and OP for fraud if they wish to because the OP's "spouse" signed her up for insurance benefits when she didn't meet the definition of an eligible dependent in the plan. The employer could also terminate the OP's husband if they wished to for falsification of company records.
All that appears is going to happen is that the OP has been dropped from coverage which they ought to thank their lucky stars for.
Last edited:
Zigner
Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Beth -
Our OP IS the legally wed spouse of the plan participant. The state recognizes them as such. The feds recognize them as such.
Thank you Zigner - - - and Beth3 - i think they'd have a a hard time claiming "fraud". No matter how you put it - that word - "fraud" was not anything that we did. Being "married" as we have been, LONG before he even started this job, we checked married on everything. It was only obvious he would check married on his application as well as insurance forms. There would NEVER be a reason for us NOT to check married. I am requesting a copy of the insurance application. I know there was NO wording on that insurance paperwork - anywhere that stated - COMMON LAW NEED NOT APPLY. As far as "thanking my luck stars", we did nothing wrong ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME in stating that we are married (ARE - not were).
Our OP IS the legally wed spouse of the plan participant. The state recognizes them as such. The feds recognize them as such.
And the insurance carrier couldn't care less how the State and federal government view them.
I know there was NO wording on that insurance paperwork - anywhere that stated - COMMON LAW NEED NOT APPLY
Nope, you won't see that. What you WILL see in the Plan Document are the definitions of what constitutes an eligible dependent and it won't include common law spouses or domestic partners.
Tink, I understand there was no intent to defaud but defraud the insurance carrier you and your husband did.
And the insurance carrier couldn't care less how the State and federal government view them.
I know there was NO wording on that insurance paperwork - anywhere that stated - COMMON LAW NEED NOT APPLY
Nope, you won't see that. What you WILL see in the Plan Document are the definitions of what constitutes an eligible dependent and it won't include common law spouses or domestic partners.
Tink, I understand there was no intent to defaud but defraud the insurance carrier you and your husband did.
Beth3 - - I am so sorry - but I really don't understand how we defrauded the insurance company. We ARE married. I cannot defraud someone by saying I am married - - when I AM. Don't like the fact that anyone would say we defrauded anyone - much less an employer or insurance company. Sorry - guess I'm slow.
Ok - last time and then I'm done beating this horse.
1. You aren't "legally" married as is universally defined and recognized. You are in a domestic partnership that is recognized by your State as a common law marriage. That's just not the same thing.
2. Your common law husband signed you up for coverage on his employer's group health plan as his eligible dependent when you clearly didn't meet the definition of an eligible dependent in the Plan. (This is the critical point of this whole discussion.)
3. For seven years the insurance company has been paying for your medical expenses when you weren't legally entitled to coverage.
4. While there was no intent to defaud, it was fraud. (Thankfully, the insurance carrier doesn't appear interested in pursuing that.)
If you want all the rights and benefits that go along with being married, then you and your husband need to get married by a Justice of the Peace, a minister, or someone who has a license from the State to perform marriages. Then the officiant registers your marriage and you may subsequently obtain a copy of your registered marriage license. Until and unless you have a marriage license, the insurance carrier WILL NOT consider you to be an eligible dependent.
1. You aren't "legally" married as is universally defined and recognized. You are in a domestic partnership that is recognized by your State as a common law marriage. That's just not the same thing.
2. Your common law husband signed you up for coverage on his employer's group health plan as his eligible dependent when you clearly didn't meet the definition of an eligible dependent in the Plan. (This is the critical point of this whole discussion.)
3. For seven years the insurance company has been paying for your medical expenses when you weren't legally entitled to coverage.
4. While there was no intent to defaud, it was fraud. (Thankfully, the insurance carrier doesn't appear interested in pursuing that.)
If you want all the rights and benefits that go along with being married, then you and your husband need to get married by a Justice of the Peace, a minister, or someone who has a license from the State to perform marriages. Then the officiant registers your marriage and you may subsequently obtain a copy of your registered marriage license. Until and unless you have a marriage license, the insurance carrier WILL NOT consider you to be an eligible dependent.
Zigner
Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What it WILL include is legal/recognized spouses. The OP's marriage is legal and recognized. Therefor, it should be recognized as such by the insurance company.
With that said, I will point out that it's pure conjecture on our parts, as neither of us (dare I say, any of us) have the actual wording available to us from the plan document.
It's time for the OP to dig up a copy of the policy and see what the EXACT wording is.
- Status
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">