Common Insurance Company V. Hocker's Obligation

• standard of the policy was improper. In evaluating the any occupation provision of the policy, Common does not have an obligation to find Hocker a position, however, it does have an obligation to look at age, employability, and the ability to obtain a job in the relevant labor market. In Hocker’s case, Lee Weiser concedes that these factors are relevant to the any occupation inquiry, but does not do a sufficient investigation to evaluate these factors. Weiser bases his 1999 decision to terminate Hocker’s benefits in part on a vocational consultation from 1995. By the time the vocational rehabilitation report was complete, the best position that the rehabilitation firm could identify for Mr. Hocker was in customer service or telephone sales. That vocational consultation, however, establishes that there are no positions available to Mr. Hocker that would provide him with a sufficient wage. Common’s conduct until it terminated benefits was consistent with the conclusion that it knew it had to consider several factors regarding Mr. Hocker’s ability to work in any occupation.

• During Weiser’s deposition, he conceded that some of the reasons he outlined in the denial letter as reasons to deny the claim were not at all reasons to deny the claim. Weiser agreed that the surveillance tapes were not a sufficient basis to deny the
Hocker. He has suffered a total disability which altered his life and affected each member of his family, his beloved wife and loving daughter. It’s just simple negligence, but it had been a calculated scheme of deceit, defraud and oppression where CIC aimed only to protects its financial interests and forfeited Mr. Hocker’s legal rights and interests. Either the jury or the judge in this case, after hearing testimonies, reviewing and the material facts would certainly render a judgment against defendant CIC without