EvilCorporations.com • Case No. 24-6137 • 10th Circuit • 20 min read

They Admitted the Mistake. Then Refused to Pay the Bill.

Reliance Standard Life Insurance cut off a brain-damaged woman’s disability payments, forced her family to fight through a legal appeal to get them back, then argued in federal court that they owed nothing for the cost of that fight. Three federal judges just agreed with them.

What It Actually Costs to Get Your Benefits Back

Jill Finley was 31 years old and working as a mortgage underwriter in May 2007 when her heart stopped. Not metaphorically. Her heart stopped. She was resuscitated, but the oxygen deprivation left a permanent wound in her brain. She could not return to work. She could not, according to her own doctor at the time, return to any work of any kind. She was totally disabled, in the fullest legal and human sense of those words.

Her employer had a long-term disability plan with Reliance Standard Life Insurance. That plan existed for exactly this reason. The paperwork was filed. The claim was approved. For fifteen years, Jill Finley received her monthly benefit payment. Her mother, Nancy Stark, became her legal guardian, because Jill could not manage her own affairs. This is what serious brain damage looks like in practice: your mother becomes your legal guardian. Someone else manages your money, your appointments, your appeals, your fights with insurance companies.

Then, in April 2022, Reliance Standard looked at some new test results and decided Jill Finley was no longer totally disabled. Fifteen years after the cardiac arrest. Fifteen years after the brain injury. The company that had been paying her benefits since 2008 looked at a woman with a documented hypoxic brain injury who cannot manage her own legal or financial affairs, and concluded she was fit for work.

Nancy Stark hired attorneys. She had no choice. There is no informal process for disputing a benefits termination. There is no hotline where a mother explains that her brain-damaged daughter still cannot work, and someone at the insurance company says, “Of course, we’ll look into it.” The only path back to benefits runs through a formal administrative appeal, which requires lawyers, which costs money, which a disabled person and her family have to pay out of the same monthly income that just got cut off.

The appeal worked. On January 23, 2023, Reliance Standard reinstated Jill Finley’s benefits. The company had been wrong. It acknowledged this, functionally, by reversing itself. But it did not volunteer the reversal. It took attorneys, documents, evidence from doctors, and a formal legal challenge to make the company acknowledge what should have been obvious: a woman with a permanent brain injury is still, in fact, brain-injured.

After the reinstatement, Nancy Stark asked Reliance Standard to pay the attorney’s fees the family had incurred to force the correction. The company refused. It said it was not required to pay. Federally, three judges have now confirmed that the company is correct: it is not required to pay. The law, as written and interpreted, does not make an insurance company pay for the cost of correcting its own wrongful termination, as long as the correcting happens before a lawsuit is filed.

That is the situation. A 31-year-old with a brain injury from a cardiac arrest. A mother managing every aspect of her daughter’s life for fifteen-plus years. An insurance company that terminated benefits wrongfully, got reversed, and walked away from the legal bill it created. The money Jill Finley did not receive during the period of wrongful termination is gone. The money spent on attorneys to get her benefits back is gone. The law says this is acceptable.

Straight from the Documents

Every quote below comes directly from court filings and official documents in Case No. 24-6137. Nothing is paraphrased.

“Under certain circumstances, your group policy allows us to deduct an estimate of the amount of the SSD benefit that you may be eligible to receive… should further documentation suggest that your illness or injury will prevent you from performing substantial work activity for a period of 12 months, future [long term disability] benefits payable by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company may be reduced by an estimated SSD benefit amount.”

— Reliance Standard letter to Jill Finley, January 2008

• This language shows Reliance Standard was already planning the SSD offset strategy from the moment it approved Finley’s claim. The company embedded a future income-reduction mechanism into its approval letter.
• The phrase “you may be eligible to receive” is notable: the company is deducting based on eligibility, a projected future income, before the money actually exists in Finley’s hands.

“Under the typical [long term disability] policy, no insured is required to file a claim for Social Security benefits. But, it is often in their best interest to do so.”

— Reliance Standard’s internal Claims Department Administrative Procedure Manual

• Reliance Standard’s own internal rulebook confirms no insured is legally required to file for SSD. Finley was not obligated to pursue Social Security benefits as a condition of her long-term disability coverage.
• The manual’s framing that filing is “in their best interest” conveniently aligns with Reliance Standard’s own financial interest: SSD income it can then deduct from the benefits it owes.

“The Monthly Benefit will be reduced by the estimated amount. If benefits have been estimated, the Monthly Benefit will be adjusted when we receive proof: (1) of the amount awarded; or (2) that benefits have been denied and the denial cannot be further appealed. If we have underpaid the Monthly Benefit for any reason, we will make a lump sum payment. If we have overpaid the Monthly Benefit for any reason, the overpayment must be repaid to us.”

— Benefits Provisions section of Finley’s long-term disability insurance policy

• The policy language creates a one-directional financial risk mechanism: if Reliance Standard underpays, they make it right; if the insured receives more than the policy formula allows, the insured must pay back every dollar.
• Under this structure, the company clawed back $27,676.73 from Finley after her SSD award, reducing her monthly take-home benefit to $966.21 per month.

“In any action under this subchapter… by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary, the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of action to either party.”

— ERISA § 1132(g)(1), cited by the Tenth Circuit in its July 8, 2025 ruling

• The court ruled that the word “action” in this statute means a formal court proceeding. Since Finley’s attorneys did their work during the administrative appeal phase (before any lawsuit was filed), that work falls outside the statute’s scope.
• All seven circuit courts that have examined this question reached the same conclusion: ERISA’s fee-shifting provision does not cover pre-litigation work. Finley’s case joins a consistent wall of rulings that closes the door on accountability for wrongful terminations corrected before trial.

“Plaintiff is receiving all the benefits to which her policy entitles her.”

— Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, July 8, 2025, Case No. 24-6137

• This single sentence is the court’s closing justification for rejecting every claim. It is technically accurate and simultaneously ignores the entire problem: Finley is receiving current benefits, but the family is out the legal fees spent to force a correction the company should have made on its own.
• The ruling treats “benefits restored” as equivalent to “harm remedied.” The cost of restoration, borne entirely by a totally disabled person’s family, is legally invisible.

Bigger Than One Family

Public Health

Finley’s case is not an isolated outcome. It is a structural feature of disability insurance administration in the United States. The ruling’s effects radiate far beyond Oklahoma.

• Jill Finley spent roughly nine months without disability benefits following the April 2022 termination, a period during which a totally disabled woman with a brain injury had to rely on whatever reserves her family possessed. The emotional and physical cost of financial instability on people with serious disabilities is documented across medical literature as a driver of health deterioration.
• The Tenth Circuit’s ruling creates a confirmed legal safe harbor for every disability insurer operating in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming: terminate benefits wrongfully, wait for the administrative appeal, reverse before a lawsuit is filed, and face zero legal cost for the error. This is a perverse incentive structure operating against sick and disabled people in six states.
• The ruling joins identical holdings from seven other circuit courts, meaning this outcome is uniform across the country. Any disabled person whose insurer terminates benefits, forces an administrative fight, and reverses before litigation has no path to recovering their legal costs under current federal law.
• The SSD offset mechanism compounds the harm specifically for people who are severely enough disabled to qualify for Social Security. Finley’s permanent brain injury qualified her for SSD, and the same severity of disability that entitled her to federal support also reduced her private insurance payout dollar-for-dollar. The sicker you are, the more income streams the insurance company can use to reduce what it owes.

Economic Inequality

The legal fees that Finley’s family incurred are the clearest economic injury in this case. The court called those fees unrecoverable. The implications for people without financial cushion are severe.

• Fighting a disability benefits termination requires hiring an attorney. There is no self-help option. The administrative appeal process is governed by ERISA, a federal statute with specific procedural requirements that an average person without legal training cannot navigate adequately. This means the cost of correcting an insurer’s mistake is an automatic attorney’s fee burden placed on the insured.
• Finley’s monthly benefit after the SSD offset was $966.21. Hiring attorneys to challenge a wrongful termination, gather medical evidence, engage vocational rehabilitation consultants, and submit a compliant administrative appeal costs far more than $966.21 per month. A person receiving disability benefits at this level has almost no ability to absorb legal costs without going into debt or depleting savings.
• The $27,676.73 that Reliance Standard clawed back in 2010, representing years of SSD-offset overpayment, represents more than two years of Finley’s net monthly benefit ($966.21 x 28 months = approximately $27,045). The clawback consumed a sum equivalent to over two years of her adjusted income in a single demand letter.
• People with greater wealth facing an identical wrongful termination can afford to litigate immediately, potentially accessing ERISA’s fee-shifting provision at the civil action level. People without wealth must fight at the administrative level first, the level where legal fees are explicitly unrecoverable. The system rewards those who can afford to escalate fastest.
• Finley’s guardian specifically requested a financial-hardship waiver of the SSD offset in 2023. Reliance Standard refused, stating the policy “does not provide a provision which allows it to accommodate financial hardship requests.” This response is notable given that the company’s own internal Claims Department manual confirms it has waived estimated SSD offsets for financial hardship in other cases.

The Numbers Behind the Ruling

The Loop Stays Open Until Someone Closes It

This ruling is settled law in the Tenth Circuit as of July 8, 2025, and aligns with federal precedent nationwide. Changing the outcome for the next Jill Finley requires legislative action, regulatory pressure, and organized resistance from the people this system is failing.

The Decision-Makers at Reliance Standard

• The court documents identify Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company as the defendant and responsible corporate entity throughout all proceedings. The specific executives who signed off on the April 2022 benefit termination, the January 2023 reversal, and the refusal to pay attorney’s fees are not identified by name in the source material: [REDACTED – Not in Source]. The company’s legal team was led by Joshua Bachrach of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker in Philadelphia, and Leasa M. Stewart of GableGotwals in Oklahoma City.
• The plaintiff was represented by Gerald E. Durbin, II, and Marcus Glen Mullins of Durbin, Larimore & Bialick in Oklahoma City.

The Regulatory Watchlist

• U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) / Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA): EBSA is the primary federal regulator of ERISA-covered disability plans. File complaints at dol.gov/agencies/ebsa. EBSA can investigate plan administrators for fiduciary violations and failure to follow claims procedures.
• State Insurance Commissioners: Reliance Standard Life Insurance is licensed and regulated in multiple states. Oklahoma’s Insurance Commissioner can receive complaints about improper claims handling. Regulatory pressure at the state level can trigger market conduct examinations.
• U.S. Congress: ERISA’s attorney’s fee provision (§ 1132(g)) requires legislative amendment to cover pre-litigation administrative proceedings. Eight circuit courts have now ruled that Congress did not intend this coverage. Only Congress can change what Congress wrote. Contact your federal representatives about ERISA reform.
• Social Security Administration (SSA) Office of Inspector General: The coordination between private disability insurers and the SSA, where private insurers redirect claimants to SSD and then claw back the resulting income, warrants systemic scrutiny from federal oversight bodies.

Resistance and Mutual Aid

• Know your ERISA rights before you need them. If you receive long-term disability benefits through an employer plan, request and read the Summary Plan Description (SPD). Understand what income offsets apply to your policy. Know the 180-day appeal window that Reliance Standard cited in this case. Missing that window can bar your claims entirely, as it did here with the SSD offset issue.
• Document everything in writing, immediately. Every communication with your disability insurer should be confirmed in writing. When Reliance Standard sent the March 2010 letter about the SSD offset, Finley’s family had 180 days to challenge it. They did not. That failure, not any moral failing of the family, but a gap in information and legal support, foreclosed an entire category of relief years later.
• Connect with disability rights organizations. Groups like the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR), the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and local legal aid societies that specialize in disability benefits can provide guidance before a crisis hits. These organizations also track legislative efforts to reform ERISA’s accountability gaps.
• Support legislative campaigns for ERISA reform. The Disability Rights Advocates and other legal nonprofits have pushed for amendments to ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions. The specific gap this case exposed, no fee recovery for pre-litigation appeals, is a known, documented problem that has now been affirmed by every federal circuit to examine it. Organized constituent pressure is the mechanism for changing it.
• If you are a worker, ask your employer which insurer holds your long-term disability policy. Request the full policy document, not just the summary. The SSD offset provision that reduced Finley’s benefit by over $1,000 per month was in the full policy, in the Benefits Provisions section. Most employees never see it until they need it.