To "engine ear" - you locked your thread

[RRevak]

To follow along with this train of logic, the OP also would have asked for a copy of the policy after being hired. Upon seeing that the clause was not as explained, the OP would have raised a stink many months ago...

Furthermore, I disagree that the OP wouldn't have accepted the job. I'm sure that, with a choice between work or no-work, one would choose work.

While I get what you're saying in terms of OP needing to ask for a copy of the policy, I can also see why he wouldn't think to ask seeing as he already had it in WRITING that the policy covered his situation. Since recruiters are generally representatives of the company or companies they are recruiting for, it could very easily be seen by some that statements made by such recruiters are directly in correlation with the policies written by the companies they represent and therefor are solid and correct.

 

[quincy]

Seeing as Op made the specific request regarding clarification of the policy before being hired, I firmly believe he both knew he would more than likely need it and that it would be a deal breaker if not offered. Why else would he ask for clarification of a policy most don't need? One doesn't just stumble into back issues severe enough to need surgery within such a short period of time without prior knowledge there were issues. So if he had it in writing (stated in his other thread) that the policy covered his situation, and my a$$umption he would have not gone with the job had they not offered such policy because he already knew he would more than likely need it, how is he not able to potentially prevail in suit?

engine ear said that he has in writing from the recruiter that "pre-existing conditions will not be a factor ..." - and pre-existing conditions apparently will not be a factor, as soon as engine ear has been with the employer for 12 months.

I am afraid he could have a difficult time proving that the recruiter knew in advance that engine ear would be relying on the insurance to cover a pre-existing condition during the first twelve months of employment and that having this coverage was an unspoken condition for him taking the job.

But engine ear can certainly review all facts with an attorney in his area to determine better if there is chance he could prevail in an action against the recruiter and be awarded damages enough to cover what insurance won't.

 

[Zigner]

While I get what you're saying in terms of OP needing to ask for a copy of the policy, I can also see why he wouldn't think to ask seeing as he already had it in WRITING that the policy covered his situation. Since recruiters are generally representatives of the company or companies they are recruiting for, it could very easily be seen by some that statements made by such recruiters are directly in correlation with the policies written by the companies they represent and therefor are solid and correct.

The recruiter didn't lie; the policy does cover preexisting conditions. The details of the coverage are outlined in the policy.

I am curious as to exactly what the OP has in writing about the policy. If it is as vague as "STD covers preexisting conditions", then the OP is out of luck. If it's as vague as "preexisting conditions won't be a factor as long as you sign-up when you start", then the OP may be out of luck. However, despite the quotation marks, I doubt that the written assurance is "preexisting conditions won't be a factor as long as you sign-up when you start".

 

[RRevak]

I always wonder why OP's come to ask questions then ride off into the sunset leaving us all to chat amongst ourselves

 

[justalayman]

again, I disagree. It does not have to be an all or nothing issue. It matters not if the OP would have accepted the job or not.


I see this as a quasi contract between the recruiter and the OP (and depending on exactly what the relationship between the two parties is, there may be an true contract)

there is no requirement in contract law to prove that you would not otherwise have entered into the contract if not for that one point. There is no requirement in contract law that if you had not entered into that contract you would have the desired benefits from another source currently.

it is pretty simple; you made a promise. that promise was not fulfilled. What is the remedy.

 

[justalayman]

I am curious as to exactly what the OP has in writing about the policy. If it is as vague as "STD covers preexisting conditions", then the OP is out of luck. If it's as vague as "preexisting conditions won't be a factor as long as you sign-up when you start", then the OP may be out of luck. However, despite the quotation marks, I doubt that the written assurance is "preexisting conditions won't be a factor as long as you sign-up when you start".

now that I can agree with. The details will determine the ultimate answer.

 

[cbg]

But the contract is not between the OP and the recruiter. She is not the one providing the benefits.

If the OP has a contract for benefits at all, it's with the employer. And they didn't make him any promises ahead of time.

 

[engine ear]

Cbg,

I don't think he negotiated anything regarding the std. He negotiated the job in whole but I believe the point was that he is trying to nail the recruiter down to apparently false representations he made in inducing the op to accept the position.

Quincy/ I don't think an insurance lawyer would be the proper area of practice either as this is not an insurance issue but a contract issue, even if the terms of the std policy were not included in any contract that may be involved.

Sorry Everyone. Work called.

Had I known that there was a 12 month waiting period before a pre-existing condition would be covered, I would have turned down the job. I was completely covered under my previous employer.

I cannot afford to go unpaid for potentially 12 weeks.

 

[Zigner]

But the contract is not between the OP and the recruiter. She is not the one providing the benefits.

If the OP has a contract for benefits at all, it's with the employer. And they didn't make him any promises ahead of time.

The theory is that the recruiter was acting as an agent of the employer.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry Everyone. Work called.

Had I known that there was a 12 month waiting period before a pre-existing condition would be covered, I would have turned down the job. I was completely covered under my previous employer.

I cannot afford to go unpaid for potentially 12 weeks.

What promise/guarantee exactly did you get in writing, word-for-word?

 

[RRevak]

What promise/guarantee exactly did you get in writing, word-for-word?

Also include posting word-for-word the actual company policy for comparison.

 

[engine ear]

The recruiter didn't lie; the policy does cover preexisting conditions. The details of the coverage are outlined in the policy.

I am curious as to exactly what the OP has in writing about the policy. If it is as vague as "STD covers preexisting conditions", then the OP is out of luck. If it's as vague as "preexisting conditions won't be a factor as long as you sign-up when you start", then the OP may be out of luck. However, despite the quotation marks, I doubt that the written assurance is "preexisting conditions won't be a factor as long as you sign-up when you start".

The quote is in writing from the recruiter. There was additional information referenced in the Benefits Book but, the information was only available to employees via the company intranet. I had asked for ALL of the information that was referenced in the Benefits Book but the request was ignored. This is why I specifically requested further detail pertaining to the Short Term Disability. Once I received the information in writing from the recruiter, I did not pursue the matter further.

I had been told there was a 12 month waiting period, I would have declined the job.

 

[RRevak]

The quote is in writing from the recruiter. There was additional information referenced in the Benefits Book but, the information was only available to employees via the company intranet. I had asked for ALL of the information that was referenced in the Benefits Book but the request was ignored. This is why I specifically requested further detail pertaining to the Short Term Disability. Once I received the information in writing from the recruiter, I did not pursue the matter further.

I had been told there was a 12 month waiting period, I would have declined the job.

OP we understand what you're saying but you REALLY need to post wording from the ACTUAL written agreement between you and the recruiter and then the actual company policy. Often we get OPs here that say their paperwork says one thing, are adamant it says what they state, but when posted it comes to find out that there are times their paperwork actually MEANS something else entirely. The devil is always in the details after all.

 

[Zigner]

The quote is in writing from the recruiter. There was additional information referenced in the Benefits Book but, the information was only available to employees via the company intranet. I had asked for ALL of the information that was referenced in the Benefits Book but the request was ignored. This is why I specifically requested further detail pertaining to the Short Term Disability. Once I received the information in writing from the recruiter, I did not pursue the matter further.

I had been told there was a 12 month waiting period, I would have declined the job.

You have STD coverage, as guaranteed. It doesn't cover you for as long as you'd like, but you have it.

Let's look at the flip-side. You say that you wouldn't have taken the job had you known about this. Do you think the employer would have hired you had they known you would be out for an extended period of time within six months of hire?

 

[engine ear]

What promise/guarantee exactly did you get in writing, word-for-word?

The statement in quotes in the original post is what I received in reply to my questions about Evidence of Insurability which indicates the existence of pre-existing condition clauses.