To "engine ear" - you locked your thread

[justalayman]

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

that's fine and not a problem.

The recruiter, if an agent of the company, can bind the company to terms and conditions. If the recruiter was an agent of the company, OP's claim would be against the company. I think that is not what the op actually wants though.

If the recruiter was not an agent of the company, they were still acting as a pseudo agent as it was the entity the OP had to deal with to obtain employment with the company. As such, the recruiter makes statements of benefits and conditions the prospect can, and actually must, rely upon since they cannot be verified directly. As such, since the recruiter is not an agent of the company, the company is not liable for the statements made but the recruiter can be held liable. They made representations of the benefits and conditions which proved to be false. The company is not liable to provide a remedy since the recruiter was not an agent of the company.


let me compare this to something I can explain a bit better:



real estate

a RE agent can be held individually liable (even though they are an agent of the seller (in this example)) for false representations made to a prospective buyer if it is of a material fact. There is no contract between the buyer and RE agent there either yet is is quite enforceable to seek the RE agent provide a remedy for misrepresentations they make (that are not otherwise stated to be not dependable through whatever waivers are present).

an example:a house being viewed is noted to have municipal water. if a re agent says to a buyer; there is a water well on this property and the seller has not made that representation to the agent, the agent can be held liable for the lack of a well being on that property. It doesn't matter if the well issue would not have caused the buyer to not buy. It is a misrepresentation of a material fact in the inducement to get the buyers to buy.

Now, if the buyers never had use for the well, they are not going to force the RE agent to install a well because there are no actual damages caused by the fact there is actually not a well but if the buyers later decide they want to grow a garden and go; hey, there is a well here we can use as a water source so we don't get charged for the water that we would otherwise have to get from the city.

agent is going to have to pay for a well. The only issue remaining is; the specifics of the well and that is where zigner's statement comes into play. What exactly did the recruiter represent as the coverage of the STD.


wow there was a lot of posts while I was typing

 

[Zigner]

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.

You have STD coverage. It's really that straight-forward. It was on YOU to determine the extent of that coverage.

 

[engine ear]

Oh, I get that, JAL. My point is that unless he can show conclusively, to the satisfaction of the judge, that he would have turned down the job but for the STD benefits AND that he not only could have, but would have, had the benefits he wanted elsewhere and he turned that job down on the basis of the STD benefits for the job he's in, he can sue all he likes but he won't win.

I was currently employed with a company where I had a STD benefit in place already. Had it been revealed that I would be unable to receive COMPLETE STD benefits, I would have remained with that employer.

 

[RRevak]

I was currently employed with a company where I had a STD benefit in place already. Had it been revealed that I would be unable to receive COMPLETE STD benefits, I would have remained with that employer.

Ok that's fine n dandy but has now become irrelevant. What was ACTUALLY promised and what did you ACTUALLY get? I'm starting to feel like a dentist here..

 

[engine ear]

Ok that's fine n dandy but has now become irrelevant. What was ACTUALLY promised and what did you ACTUALLY get? I'm starting to feel like a dentist here..

Everyone, while I appreciate ALL the opinions, I was really only looking for direction in the type of lawyer I should consult with. I am not sure area of law this issue falls under.

 

[Zigner]

Everyone, while I appreciate ALL the opinions, I was really only looking for direction in the type of lawyer I should consult with. I am not sure area of law this issue falls under.

Employment law and/or contract law.

Based on what you've presented here, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[RRevak]

Everyone, while I appreciate ALL the opinions, I was really only looking for direction in the type of lawyer I should consult with. I am not sure area of law this issue falls under.

OP you're getting answers from people who understand these types of things as professionals. You are getting questions that WILL be asked by whatever attorney you seek. If you aren't happy with what you're getting here then you probably won't be happy with an attorney. But feel free to find one anyway.

 

[engine ear]

OP you're getting answers from people who understand these types of things as professionals. You are getting questions that WILL be asked by whatever attorney you seek. If you aren't happy with what you're getting here then you probably won't be happy with an attorney. But feel free to find one anyway.

I listed all of the information to give a little background. My questions were posted in the last line. I did not wish to completely hash this out on the forum. I WILL answer ALL of the questions with the attorney that I find. I never said I wasn't happy with anything provided I was simply attempting to answer the questions.
Thanks for your time.

 

[engine ear]

Employment law and/or contract law.

Based on what you've presented here, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

Thanks for the help. I have not gone into great detail and never intended to on this forum. The lawyer I consult with will be given ALL the details and they can make a better determination.

 

[quincy]

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.

First, a misrepresentation is an assertion that is not in accord with the facts - so it does not appear on its face that the recruiter misrepresented any facts. If he said there were pre-existing condition clauses and there are pre-existing clauses, that is in accord with the facts.

It does not appear from what you have said that the recruiter intentionally concealed facts to entice you into accepting the employment position.

It can be that a failure to disclose all facts (omitting facts) could be seen as a misrepresentation of the facts, but certain conditions must be met for an omission to be looked at as an assertion (and therefore a potential misrepresentation).

If the recruiter knew that mentioning the "12 months before full coverage for pre-existing conditions went into effect" would be material to your decision to take the job, or if the recruiter knew that mentioning the "12 months" would correct an incorrect assumption you had made about the coverage, or if the recruiter knew that mentioning the "12 months" would correct an expressed misunderstanding of the terms of the contract as a whole (or in part as it related to the insurance), then it could potentially be seen as a misrepresentation.

But I am not seeing from what you have posted that the recruiter knew or believed your acceptance of the job offer rested entirely on the pre-existing clause condition being in effect within the first year of employment. While you may feel that the incomplete information you received from the recruiter was a misrepresentation of the facts, I do not believe based on what you have said here that a court would see it that way.

That said, and if you are looking to have the recruiter/recruiting firm cover all medical expenses not covered by your insurance, based on what you feel was a misrepresentation of the facts which induced you into entering into a contract that you would not otherwise have entered into, you will want to consult with an attorney in your area who is well-versed in contract law. A personal review all of the facts of your recruitment and a personal review of all documents you have in your possession that relates to this recruitment, will be necessary to determine better if there is an action that has any chance of success.

Good luck.

 

[engine ear]

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.

Once hired, having discovered the pre-existing condition clause would make little difference whether it was now or 6 months ago. It would be impossible to return to a job once I had quit.

FYI, the pre-existing clause would have been a deal breaker. I already had a job, this was a chance for other opportunities. And Yes, there was a possibility that I would need the coverage. This is the reason I elected to pay for it and was asking the questions about coverage.

Thanks again for all your thoughts. I appreciate the comments.

 

[engine ear]

First, a misrepresentation is an assertion that is not in accord with the facts - so it does not appear on its face that the recruiter misrepresented any facts. If he said there were pre-existing condition clauses and there are pre-existing clauses, that is in accord with the facts.

It does not appear from what you have said that the recruiter intentionally concealed facts to entice you into accepting the employment position.

It can be that a failure to disclose all facts (omitting facts) could be seen as a misrepresentation of the facts, but certain conditions must be met for an omission to be looked at as an assertion (and therefore a potential misrepresentation).

If the recruiter knew that mentioning the "12 months before full coverage for pre-existing conditions went into effect" would be material to your decision to take the job, or if the recruiter knew that mentioning the "12 months" would correct an incorrect assumption you had made about the coverage, or if the recruiter knew that mentioning the "12 months" would correct an expressed misunderstanding of the terms of the contract as a whole (or in part as it related to the insurance), then it could potentially be seen as a misrepresentation.

But I am not seeing from what you have posted that the recruiter knew or believed your acceptance of the job offer rested entirely on the pre-existing clause condition being in effect within the first year of employment. While you may feel that the incomplete information you received from the recruiter was a misrepresentation of the facts, I do not believe based on what you have said here that a court would see it that way.

That said, and if you are looking to have the recruiter/recruiting firm cover all medical expenses not covered by your insurance, based on what you feel was a misrepresentation of the facts which induced you into entering into a contract that you would not otherwise have entered into, you will want to consult with an attorney in your area who is well-versed in contract law. A personal review all of the facts of your recruitment and a personal review of all documents you have in your possession that relates to this recruitment, will be necessary to determine better if there is an action that has any chance of success.

Good luck.

Thanks for the information. I appreciate your time.