No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court granted Symetra's motion for judgment in its favor, finding that the plaintiff's long-term disability claim was properly denied under the pre-existing condition exclusion clause because she had received treatment for chronic neck and back pain within 12 months prior to her coverage effective date.
Crowder Hitz v. Symetra Life Insurance Company
What Happened
Crowder Hitz filed a long-term disability claim with Symetra Life Insurance Company while working for C.R. England, Inc. The insurance company denied her claim, citing a pre-existing condition exclusion. This clause excluded coverage for health problems a person had received treatment for within 12 months before the insurance policy started.
The Court's Decision
The court sided with Symetra. The judge found that the insurance company properly denied Hitz's claim because she had received medical treatment for chronic neck and back pain within the 12-month period before her coverage began. According to the policy language, this made her condition ineligible for benefits.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling reinforces that pre-existing condition exclusion clauses in disability insurance are enforceable. Workers should carefully review any disability coverage offered through their employer—particularly the exclusion clauses—before relying on these benefits. If you've received medical treatment for any condition recently, ask your employer or insurance provider whether it might be excluded from coverage under your specific policy.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.