Being dropped from Insurance

[Tink11464]

It is the employer who is saying that PENNSYLVANIA does not recognize "common law". I am pointing out to the emplyer that Pennsylvania DOES recognize common law - - IF it was before 2005. The insurance company is doing the audit. They are the ones who told me I had to call the employer - when I called employer they stated the above. For the record: Pennsylvania DOES recognize common law marriages IF they were established BEFORE 1/1/2005 - - - ours was 10/30/1998 - - - well before the 2005 date.

 

[Zigner]

Doesn't matter. Just because the State has chosen to recognize common law marriages doesn't mean the employer has to.

The employer recognizes valid marriages. The plan is silent as to the definition of a valid marriage. At that point, it would be based on state law. State law says that our OP's marriage is valid.

Beth, you've kinda dug your heals in on this one and really don't seem to be looking at this in a big-picture way. Our OP has a very valid point in this matter.

YES, our OP should simply go take care of getting paperwork done...but the OP IS right on this one, even without that piece of paper.

 

[Tink11464]

I understand about the "piece of paper". It does seem "easier" to just cave and do that, but I don't feel as if I should have to do that - especially 14 yrs later (and 7 years after having this insurance - only for it to be an issue now that MY insurance needs are quite costly has this become an issue). I am still waiting on a reply from the employer - - once I get that I will see how to proceed. It's not a matter of what they choose is THEIR right - it's a matter of what is legally right (to me anyway).

 

[Zigner]

I understand about the "piece of paper". It does seem "easier" to just cave and do that, but I don't feel as if I should have to do that - especially 14 yrs later (and 7 years after having this insurance - only for it to be an issue now that MY insurance needs are quite costly has this become an issue). I am still waiting on a reply from the employer - - once I get that I will see how to proceed. It's not a matter of what they choose is THEIR right - it's a matter of what is legally right (to me anyway).

Some people call that "Cutting off your nose to spite your face"

 

[Tink11464]

Zigner - - i knowwww.... I guess I never really thought of it until now. We have never (and I really mean NEVER) had an issue before. Changing my social security card, my driver's license, etc... Never an issue.

 

[Zigner]

Zigner - - i knowwww.... I guess I never really thought of it until now. We have never (and I really mean NEVER) had an issue before. Changing my social security card, my driver's license, etc... Never an issue.

That's because you are legally married

However, sometimes the path of least resistance is a pleasant path to travel on.

 

[Tink11464]

That's exactly WHY!!! Thanks!!!!

 

[cbg]

For the record, I went into the PA insurance laws and could not find anything in them addressing common law spouses, either requiring or prohibiting the coverage thereof. PA law appears to be silent on the matter. With no requirement that an employer provide coverage for common law spouses, it would appear to be the employer's opt whether to do so or not. And yes, I looked specifically at the laws regarding marital status discrimination.

 

[Tink11464]

Thank you cbg

 

[Zigner]

For the record, I went into the PA insurance laws and could not find anything in them addressing common law spouses, either requiring or prohibiting the coverage thereof. PA law appears to be silent on the matter. With no requirement that an employer provide coverage for common law spouses, it would appear to be the employer's opt whether to do so or not. And yes, I looked specifically at the laws regarding marital status discrimination.

The plan covers spouses. OP's marriage is legal and recognized by the state. The OP is a spouse.

 

[Beth3]

But the employer and insurance carrier chose not to recognize their domestic partnership as a marriage as it relates to what constitutes a legal dependent for insurance purposes and they're free to make that decision (which is the position the great majority of employers would take.)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Zigner. There's no point in you and I debating it any further.

 

[Zigner]

But the employer and insurance carrier chose not to recognize their domestic partnership as a marriage as it relates to what constitutes a legal dependent for insurance purposes and they're free to make that decision (which is the position the great majority of employers would take.)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Zigner. There's no point in you and I debating it any further.

Beth.

This is NOT a domestic partnership. That is why you are wrong.

 

[Beth3]

Let's not start debating semantics.

 

[Zigner]

Let's not start debating semantics.

It's not a matter of semantics. A domestic partnership is entirely different from a marriage (whether it be common-law or otherwise.)

 

[cbg]

It would appear that Zigner is not prepared to agree to disagree.