Brent Dorian Brehm

In Lee v. West Coast Life Insurance Company, Brent Dorian Brehm helped clarify a critical limit on interpleader protection. The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that interpleader does not shield a negligent insurance company from liability for creating the very dispute it seeks to interplead. The court answered the question: Can a stakeholder escape tort liability by filing interpleader? — by saying No, not if its own negligence caused the conflict. The ruling revived claims for $290,000 in lost benefits and litigation costs, reinforcing that insurers must exercise due care when processing beneficiary changes.

In Porco v. Prudential Insurance Co., Brent Dorian Brehm secured a federal court victory on behalf of a client whose long-term disability benefits had been wrongly terminated after years of documented spinal impairment and severe pain. Despite multiple treating neurologists confirming the client’s disabling spinal condition, Prudential relied on limited video surveillance and flawed file reviews to justify cutting off benefits. The court conducted a de novo review and found that the client remained totally disabled under the plan’s terms, rejecting Prudential’s medical opinions and vocational analysis as unreliable. The judge ordered retroactive reinstatement of benefits with prejudgment interest, citing extensive medical evidence and improper reliance on surveillance footage. This decision illustrates Brent’s expertise in litigating complex ERISA disability claims and holding insurers accountable when they prioritize surveillance over science.

In Holmgren v. Sun Life, Brent Dorian Brehm obtained judgment in favor of his client in a long-term disability (LTD) benefits case governed by ERISA. Mr. Holmgren challenged Sun Life's denial of LTD benefits arising from chronic, degenerative back conditions and persistent pain that rendered him unable to perform the duties of his occupation as a corporate tax director.

The court emphasized that Sun Life improperly relied on non-examining consultants and discredited treating physicians’ opinions without justification, and that it erred in demanding objective evidence for a condition—chronic pain—that is inherently subjective but credibly documented through consistent medical records, surgical history, and treating physician support.

The court also rejected Sun Life’s arguments based on surveillance footage, social media activity, and a self-assessment performance review, finding these insufficient to rebut the overwhelming medical evidence. Notably, the court found Sun Life’s dismissal of the claimant’s pain complaints as lacking objective proof to be inconsistent with established Ninth Circuit precedent.

The court answered the question: can a claimant prove disability under a long term disability policy despite limited “objective” findings—and held that they can.

This decision reinforces a claimant’s right to disability benefits when supported by credible subjective complaints, longitudinal medical history, and treating physician testimony, even in the face of insurer skepticism and non-examining consultant opinions.

Securing court order that Brighthouse Life deposit $250,185.62, plus the interest accrued at $13,181.01, totaling $263,366.63, into the Registry of the Court.

In Harris v. BDO USA LLP, Brent Dorian Brehm successfully defended ERISA fiduciary claims against dismissal, allowing a surviving spouse to pursue relief after her husband lost life insurance coverage due to BDO’s failures. The court answered the question: Can an ERISA fiduciary be liable for failing to notify a terminally ill employee about conversion rights—especially after accepting late premiums and promising follow-up? By saying: Yes, if the fiduciary’s conduct misleads the participant and causes harm. The court found the complaint plausibly alleged that BDO breached its fiduciary duties by misrepresenting coverage status, failing to provide required information, and accepting premiums after coverage lapsed—exposing the surviving spouse to uncompensated loss. The ruling preserved claims for equitable relief under § 1132(a)(3), including surcharge.