Reliance Standard LTD Denial? We’re Champions for Folks Who Need Help.

1. Introduction: Understanding Reliance Standard and the LTD Landscape

Summary: Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (RSL) is a major provider of long-term disability (LTD) insurance and employee benefits in the U.S. Backed by the global Tokio Marine Group, RSL promotes itself as financially stable and committed to policyholders. Yet for many disabled claimants, securing LTD benefits from Reliance Standard can be unexpectedly difficult. Understanding the company's corporate structure, market reach, and litigation history is critical for anyone facing an RSL disability claim or denial.

Founded in 1907 as Central Standard Life Insurance Company and rebranded in 1965, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (RSL) has long positioned itself as a leader in the disability insurance industry. Since becoming part of the Tokio Marine Group in 2012—a Japanese multinational and one of the world’s oldest and most financially robust insurance conglomerates—RSL has emphasized its superior financial strength, earning consistent A++ (Superior) ratings from A.M. Best.

RSL is a prominent player in the group long-term disability (LTD) insurance market, providing employer-sponsored coverage across the country. Through its integrated brand, Reliance Matrix (which includes Matrix Absence Management), the company has become a top administrator of absence and leave management services, including outsourced FMLA programs. According to a 2023 industry survey, Reliance Matrix ranked as the #1 absence management provider in the U.S., supporting over 9 million employees. This expansive reach means that millions of workers depend on RSL for income replacement if they are unable to work due to injury or illness.

However, behind the marketing about strength and stability lies a different story for many claimants. Reliance Standard has been repeatedly sued over its handling of LTD claims, with numerous federal lawsuits highlighting issues such as unjustified denials, claim terminations, and failure to consider the full scope of a claimant’s disability. While a strong financial rating reflects the company’s ability to pay, it doesn’t guarantee that claimants will receive timely or fair treatment.

For individuals filing or appealing an LTD claim with Reliance Standard, it’s important to recognize this disconnect between image and practice. A successful claim often requires more than just medical records—it may involve navigating a system designed to minimize payouts, especially in ERISA-governed plans. Understanding RSL’s structure and reputation is the first step in preparing a strong claim or legal strategy.

If you’re facing resistance from Reliance Standard on your disability claim, know this: you’re not alone—and you’re not without options. In the sections that follow, we’ll explore the key denial tactics, legal hurdles, and strategies to level the playing field.

2. Navigating Reliance Standard LTD Claims: Common Challenges and Denial Tactics

Summary: Filing a long-term disability (LTD) claim with Reliance Standard can feel like entering a maze of obstacles. While the company emphasizes financial strength and policyholder service, claimants often encounter denials based on restrictive definitions of disability, demands for “objective” evidence, procedural technicalities, and aggressive surveillance or medical reviews. Understanding these common denial tactics is the first step in preparing a successful claim or appeal.

2.1. Top Reasons Reliance Standard Denies LTD Claims

Definition of Disability – "Any Occupation" Shift:
Many Reliance Standard policies initially define disability as the inability to perform the duties of one’s own occupation, but after 24 months, this often changes to an “any occupation” standard. This stricter definition allows the insurer to argue a claimant can work in a lower-paying or sedentary role—regardless of whether it's realistic or appropriate. This transition point is a common reason for terminations and frequent litigation.

Insufficient “Objective” Medical Evidence:
Reliance Standard routinely demands objective evidence—like MRIs or lab results—even for conditions where such evidence is difficult to obtain. Claims involving fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, POTS, or Long-COVID often face heightened scrutiny. The company may disregard treating physician opinions and favor “paper reviews” from consultants who never examine the claimant. Courts have increasingly pushed back against this rigid standard, especially when subjective symptoms are well-documented by treating doctors.

Pre-Existing Condition Denials:
If you received treatment shortly before your policy began, Reliance Standard may invoke the pre-existing condition exclusion, even for unrelated or resolved issues. In Krueger v. Reliance Standard, the court rejected the company’s attempt to deny POTS benefits based on a previous, different diagnosis—highlighting the importance of closely analyzing policy language and medical history.

Mental/Nervous Disorder (MND) Limitations:
Many policies limit coverage for mental health disabilities (e.g., depression, anxiety) to 24 months. Reliance Standard may apply this limit even when physical conditions are the primary cause of disability. Under the Weyer standard, the limitation should not apply unless the mental condition is the “but-for” cause of disability. Courts often scrutinize misuse of this clause.

Alleged Misrepresentation or Fraud:
The company may deny benefits if it believes the claimant provided inaccurate information when applying for coverage or during the claim review. Even unintentional omissions can be used to justify a denial.

Failure to Submit Timely or Complete Documentation:
Reliance Standard can deny a claim if the claimant misses a deadline or fails to provide requested materials (e.g., medical records, tax documents). Some denials stem from vague or repeated document requests that overwhelm claimants.

Eligibility Issues – Not "Actively at Work":
The insurer may assert the claimant was not working full-time or meeting other eligibility criteria when coverage started. Even slight reductions in work hours before the disability date can trigger disputes about coverage.

2.2. Claim Investigation Tools Used by Reliance Standard

Independent Medical Exams (IMEs):
Reliance Standard frequently schedules IMEs with physicians it selects and pays. These doctors often provide opinions that contradict treating physicians, creating a basis to deny or terminate benefits. Courts have questioned the neutrality of these exams, especially when conducted hastily or without addressing key symptoms.

Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs):
FCEs test a claimant’s physical abilities but can be selectively interpreted. If a claimant stops an activity due to pain (called “self-limiting behavior”), Reliance may claim the results are unreliable or that the person is capable of more than reported.

Medical File Reviews ("Paper Reviews"):
Reliance Standard often uses internal staff or contracted doctors to review medical records without meeting the claimant. These reviewers may ignore or minimize subjective symptoms, cherry-pick normal findings, and contradict treating providers—leading to denials that courts have deemed unreasonable.

Surveillance and Social Media Monitoring:
The insurer may hire private investigators to surveil claimants or monitor their online presence. Even brief or routine activities—like walking the dog or attending a family event—can be taken out of context and used to suggest exaggeration.

Vocational Assessments:
To justify “any occupation” denials, Reliance may use vocational experts to claim the claimant can perform other work. These assessments often rely on outdated job descriptions or fail to account for real-world cognitive or physical limitations.

Repeated Requests for Information:
Claimants may be bombarded with repeated document requests, adding stress and creating administrative delays. Some requests appear redundant or poorly explained, contributing to confusion and burnout.

2.3. Procedural Hurdles That Can Derail an LTD Claim

Strict ERISA Appeal Deadlines:
Most group LTD claims are governed by ERISA, which imposes a strict 180-day deadline to appeal a denial. This appeal is your only chance to build the administrative record—courts generally cannot consider new evidence later.

Reliance Standard’s Missed Deadlines:
Although ERISA requires insurers to decide appeals within 45 days (or 90 with extension), Reliance Standard has missed these deadlines in multiple cases. When this happens, the court may apply a more favorable de novo review standard, increasing the claimant’s chances of success.

Burden on the Claimant to Build the Record:
Unlike a trial, you won’t get to present new testimony or evidence in court. Everything must be included in the administrative appeal—including medical reports, functional assessments, and vocational opinions.

Customer Service Complaints:
Many claimants report difficulty getting responses from RSL claims handlers, delays in decision-making, and vague or dismissive communication. These frustrations are reflected in low customer ratings on sites like the Better Business Bureau and Consumer Affairs.

Conflict of Interest – Pay and Decide:
Reliance Standard acts as both payor and decision-maker on most claims, creating a built-in financial conflict of interest. Courts are more likely to scrutinize decisions when evidence suggests bias or inconsistent claim handling.

2.4. How Reliance Standard Handles Specific Medical Conditions

Mental Health Claims:
These are often limited to 24 months and may be undercut by claims that the mental condition contributes to—rather than causes—disability, even when physical issues are the primary driver.

Fibromyalgia, CFS, Chronic Pain:
Claims for these “invisible” conditions are often denied due to a lack of objective evidence. Reliance Standard may discount consistent reports of pain and fatigue—even when supported by specialists. Strong physician support and detailed function-based documentation are key.

Long-COVID:
This emerging condition is often met with skepticism by insurers. Reliance Standard has denied claims citing a lack of diagnostic clarity or "insufficient" evidence. However, courts are beginning to push back against these denials when physicians provide thorough clinical support.

POTS:
This autonomic disorder presents challenges due to fluctuating symptoms like dizziness, fatigue, and cognitive fog. RSL may also claim it is a pre-existing condition. Krueger remains a key precedent showing these denials can be overcome with the right documentation and legal argument.

Back and Musculoskeletal Disorders:
These claims are frequently contested, even when supported by imaging. After 24 months, RSL may argue the claimant can perform sedentary work, regardless of documented pain or positional restrictions.

Understanding these patterns allows you to prepare for what lies ahead. In the next section, we’ll dive deeper into the specific investigative tools and claim handling tactics Reliance Standard uses to challenge disability claims—and how you can push back.

3. The Claimant Experience: Reported Perspectives and Frustrations

Summary: Claimants navigating the LTD claims process with Reliance Standard often report deep frustration, emotional distress, and financial instability. Common themes include poor communication, sudden denials, burdensome documentation demands, biased medical reviews, and procedural confusion. These lived experiences expose the human cost of Reliance Standard’s approach to long-term disability claim management—and highlight the importance of understanding your rights and options.

3.1. Claimant Sentiment: An Adversarial Experience

Across online disability forums, legal complaints, and consumer websites, the overwhelming tone from Reliance Standard claimants is negative. Whether on Reddit, ConsumerAffairs, or the Better Business Bureau (BBB), claimants repeatedly express mistrust, frustration, and exhaustion with the claims process.

• BBB Ratings: Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. is not BBB-accredited and has received low grades, including a D- rating in some periods, citing unresolved complaints and poor responsiveness.

• Consumer Reviews: On platforms like Consumer Affairs, claimants describe feeling ignored, disrespected, and “abandoned” by an insurer they expected would provide protection.

• Common Sentiment: The process is described as “a battle,” “a trap,” or “a game designed to make you quit.” One user warned: “Don’t trust them. Ever.”

This adversarial tone contrasts sharply with the image of a supportive safety net and reflects the emotional weight claimants carry—trying to heal while fighting to be believed.

3.2. Common Complaints from Reliance Standard Claimants

Sudden and Unexplained Terminations

Claimants often report being approved for LTD benefits—sometimes for years—only to have them abruptly cut off, especially around the 24-month “any occupation” review. One individual described being approved and denied four separate times in two years, creating emotional whiplash and financial instability.

Dismissal of Subjective Conditions

Reliance Standard regularly denies or terminates claims involving Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, POTS, and Long-COVID, asserting a lack of “objective proof.” This leaves claimants—many of whom suffer invisible but life-altering symptoms—feeling invalidated and unseen.

Feeling Ignored or Dismissed

Poor communication is a repeated theme: unreturned calls, vague letters, and representatives who seem untrained or uncaring. Claimants report spending hours trying to get answers, only to hit dead ends.

Excessive Documentation Requests

Claimants are often overwhelmed by repetitive paperwork demands, sometimes being asked to submit the same documents multiple times or fill out complex forms with little guidance.

Biased IMEs and Paper Reviews

Medical reviews are seen as tools for denial—not impartial evaluations. IMEs are conducted by doctors hired and paid by Reliance Standard, while “paper reviews” often override treating physicians without ever seeing the patient.

Surveillance and Monitoring

The threat—or realization—of surveillance adds emotional stress. Claimants report being followed, recorded, or scrutinized online. Innocent activities like walking the dog or attending church are twisted to suggest exaggeration of symptoms.

SSDI Vendor Pressure

Reliance Standard often requires claimants to apply for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and pressures them to work with third-party vendors it selects. Many fear conflicts of interest or subpar advocacy from these providers.

3.3. Human Impact: The Real Cost of LTD Denials

The consequences of Reliance Standard’s claims handling are far more than administrative—they ripple into every aspect of a claimant’s life:

• Severe Financial Consequences: With benefits withheld, claimants report falling behind on rent, losing homes, accruing medical debt, and even filing for bankruptcy.

• Health Setbacks: Stress from the denial process worsens physical and mental health conditions. Many describe the fight for benefits as “a second trauma” on top of the original disability.

• Emotional Toll: The power imbalance—one sick individual versus a large insurer—leaves many feeling helpless and dehumanized.

• Forced Legal Action: With benefits denied, many are pushed into lengthy and expensive legal battles to secure what they were promised under the policy.

3.4. Pain Points in the Process

From the claimant perspective, the following issues consistently stand out as breaking points:

• The 24-month "any occupation" review—a frequent moment of unexpected termination.

• Claims based on Long-COVID, CFS, POTS, fibromyalgia, or chronic pain—all vulnerable to denial due to Reliance Standard’s emphasis on “objective evidence.”

• The complexity of ERISA deadlines and appeals, which many find impossible to navigate without legal help.

• The perceived unfairness of IMEs and paper reviews, often viewed as a rubber stamp for denial.

• A pattern of discouragement, where difficult processes seem aimed at making claimants abandon their claims before they succeed.

If you feel like you're being treated unfairly by Reliance Standard, you're not imagining it—and you're not alone. In the next section, we’ll explore the legal procedures and regulatory standards that govern how LTD claims must be handled, and how claimants can push back effectively.

4. Reliance Standard’s Perspective: Stated Policies vs. Claimant Reality

Summary: Reliance Standard promotes its LTD policies as protective, fair, and financially secure. Official materials emphasize stability, structure, and service. But when compared with real claimant experiences, a different picture emerges—one marked by procedural delays, heightened burdens of proof, and aggressive investigative tactics. This disconnect between the company’s stated approach and lived experiences is central to understanding the challenges of filing or appealing a disability claim.

4.1. What Reliance Standard Says: Official LTD Policy Language

Reliance Standard presents its long-term disability coverage as a reliable safety net, often highlighting:

• A 60% income replacement benefit, up to a policy-specific maximum

• A waiting (elimination) period of 90 or 180 days before benefits begin

• Benefits payable up to age 65 or Social Security Normal Retirement Age

• A two-part definition of disability:

• First 24 months: unable to perform one’s own occupation

• After 24 months: unable to perform any occupation

• Clear limitations and exclusions, including for pre-existing conditions and mental health-related disabilities

The language across brochures, certificates of coverage, and HR-facing materials stresses protection during difficult times, with financial strength and Tokio Marine’s global backing as reassurance.

4.2. What Reliance Standard Describes: The Official Claims Process

Reliance Standard outlines a seemingly structured and fair claims process:

1. Submitting the Claim: Online, fax, or mail

2. Claim Forms: Divided among the claimant, employer, and physician

3. Authorization: Allows access to medical, tax, and employment records

4. Review: A claims examiner gathers records and evaluates eligibility

5. Communication: Decisions issued in writing, with support available via online portals or phone

6. Timelines: Standard decisions are promised within 45 days (extendable under ERISA rules)

This system appears thorough, transparent, and grounded in objective evaluation based on the policy terms.

4.3. What Claimants Report: Gaps Between Policy and Practice

Despite the official narrative, claimants often face a very different experience. The contrast between what is promised and what is practiced creates significant stress, confusion, and ultimately litigation.

“Simple” Forms vs. Complex Investigations

Claim materials suggest a straightforward process, yet claimants frequently report:

• Invasive surveillance

• IMEs by insurer-paid doctors

• FCEs interpreted to support denials

• Paper reviews that ignore treating doctors

These aggressive tactics are not disclosed in policy summaries and create a hostile environment rather than a supportive one.

Timelines vs. Delays

Reliance Standard claims to follow ERISA’s 45-day review window—but claimants and court records tell another story:

• Long periods of silence

• Missed ERISA appeal deadlines, which can shift court review in favor of the claimant

• Delays that exacerbate health and financial struggles

“Satisfactory Proof” vs. Heightened Standards

While policies require "satisfactory proof of disability," in practice this often translates into:

• Rejection of subjective symptoms

• Dismissal of treating physician opinions

• Heavy reliance on “objective” tests, even when inappropriate for the condition

Claimants describe this as a moving target—where even thorough documentation is deemed “not enough.”

Service Promises vs. Real Interactions

Reliance Standard promotes a commitment to claimant support. Yet:

• BBB and Consumer Affairs feature low ratings and unresolved complaints

• Claimants describe rude or unresponsive representatives, vague communication, and a lack of transparency

The image of a helpful insurance partner often does not match the reality of feeling dismissed, delayed, or disbelieved.

Bridging the Gap: Why This Mismatch Matters

This gap between stated policies and real-world practices is not just frustrating—it’s legally significant. Many of the issues experienced by claimants aren’t explicitly forbidden by policy, but courts increasingly recognize that how a claim is handled can be just as important as what’s written in the contract.

The disparity between marketing and methodology is often where claimants need the most protection. In the next section, we’ll break down how Reliance Standard’s tactics impact different medical conditions—and how to counter them with the right strategy and evidence.

5. Judicial Review: Insights from Legal Battles Involving Reliance Standard

Summary: Reliance Standard has been the subject of numerous ERISA disability lawsuits, many of which reveal recurring patterns in how it handles LTD claims. Courts have overturned its benefit denials for reasons such as improper dismissal of subjective symptoms, biased medical reviews, procedural violations, and flawed policy interpretations. These rulings provide valuable guidance for claimants, especially regarding how to strengthen the administrative appeal record before litigation.

5.1 Federal Courts Often Reverse Reliance Standard's LTD Denials

Lawsuits against Reliance Standard for long-term disability (LTD) claim denials are not uncommon, and many lead to favorable outcomes for claimants. In federal court—particularly under ERISA—judges review whether the insurer’s decision was supported by the evidence and made in a fair, reasonable manner.

Courts have frequently ruled that Reliance Standard’s denials were:

• Arbitrary and capricious, even under deferential ERISA standards, or

• Incorrect upon de novo review, especially when the company failed to follow ERISA’s procedural rules

In both scenarios, courts have ordered Reliance Standard to pay past-due benefits and reinstate claims, providing meaningful relief for disabled individuals who had exhausted the insurer’s internal appeals.

5.2 Judicial Criticism of Reliance Standard’s Claim Practices

Improper Handling of Medical Evidence

Judges have faulted Reliance Standard for placing undue emphasis on the absence of “objective evidence” while dismissing credible subjective symptoms such as pain, fatigue, and cognitive dysfunction—particularly in POTS, Long-COVID, Fibromyalgia, and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome claims.

Key judicial concerns include:

• Ignoring treating physician reports

• Relying solely on non-examining “paper review” consultants

• Discrediting symptoms that cannot be measured by tests, despite clinical documentation

These rulings align with a growing body of case law affirming that subjective symptoms—if well-documented—can support a valid disability claim.

Cherry-Picking the Record

Courts have flagged Reliance Standard for selectively relying on favorable snippets of medical records or IME findings, while ignoring:

• Opposing physician opinions

• Relevant diagnostic context

• The claimant’s functional limitations in their entirety

This tactic has led judges to conclude that Reliance Standard’s reviews lacked fairness and balance, undermining the integrity of their decision-making process.

Misapplication of Policy Terms

Reliance Standard has been reversed for misinterpreting key provisions such as:

• Pre-existing condition exclusions, where the insurer broadly applied vague prior diagnoses

• Mental/Nervous Disorder (MND) limitations, when the disabling condition was clearly physical

• The “any occupation” standard, when the insurer overstated a claimant’s capacity or failed to properly assess vocational factors

These errors suggest a pattern of overreach in claim denials, especially during the 24-month “any occupation” review period.

Procedural Failures Under ERISA

Courts have repeatedly found that Reliance Standard failed to meet ERISA’s timeliness requirements, such as:

• Missing the 45-day deadline to issue appeal decisions

• Failing to notify claimants of delays or provide updated timelines

These procedural violations can lead courts to apply a de novo standard of review—a major legal advantage for claimants, since the court reviews the case from scratch rather than deferring to the insurer’s decision.

Evidence of Bias or Conflict of Interest

In several cases, judges have commented on signs that Reliance Standard’s review process appeared to be driven by its financial interest, rather than an impartial evaluation of the evidence. Courts may weigh this conflict more heavily when there’s procedural irregularity or unreasonable conduct.

5.3 Why Legal Precedent Matters for Your Claim

These rulings make one thing clear: how you present your administrative appeal is everything. Under ERISA, courts generally cannot consider new evidence introduced after the appeal stage—so if critical medical records, functional capacity evaluations, or physician statements weren’t submitted during the internal process, they may be excluded from court review.

The repeated judicial criticism of Reliance Standard’s handling of LTD claims points to systemic issues, not isolated incidents. This is why strategic legal guidance during the claim or appeal process—not just after a denial—is so essential.

6. Unique Aspects of Handling Claims with Reliance Standard

Summary: While many long-term disability insurers present challenges, Reliance Standard exhibits distinct patterns that set it apart. From aggressively denying claims involving subjective symptoms to recurring ERISA violations and a high litigation rate, Reliance Standard’s claim handling tactics require heightened awareness and tailored strategy. Claimants facing conditions like POTS, Long-COVID, or Fibromyalgia—and those with high-value claims—should prepare for a particularly tough battle.

6.1 Aggressive Denials of Subjective Conditions

Reliance Standard is notably stringent in its treatment of claims involving subjective symptoms, especially for:

• Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS)

• Long-COVID

• Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)

• Fibromyalgia

• Chronic pain and neurocognitive impairments

While many insurers scrutinize these diagnoses, court decisions have repeatedly singled out Reliance Standard for demanding unreasonable levels of objective proof and minimizing credible documentation from treating physicians. This pattern suggests an insurer strategy of targeting hard-to-prove disabilities with the expectation that many claimants will be unable to meet the high evidentiary burden.

For claimants with these conditions, it’s essential to submit detailed medical records, functional capacity evidence, and physician narratives that specifically describe how symptoms limit work ability—not just diagnoses.

6.2 Procedural Vulnerabilities: ERISA Deadline Failures

One of Reliance Standard’s recurring weaknesses is its failure to meet ERISA-mandated deadlines, particularly the 45-day window to decide appeals. Courts have penalized this procedural noncompliance by:

• Stripping the insurer of its discretionary authority, and

• Applying a more favorable de novo standard of review in court

While no claimant should count on a procedural error, this documented pattern makes it vital to:

• Track all correspondence and deadlines

• Document any missed deadlines or delays

• Use these procedural missteps strategically if litigation becomes necessary

This is one of the few areas where Reliance Standard’s own internal practices have consistently worked against it in court.

6.3 High Rate of Litigation and Denial Endurance

Among attorneys who regularly handle long-term disability litigation, Reliance Standard is known for its willingness to deny difficult claims and stand behind those denials through litigation. In particular, claims with:

• High monthly benefits

• Young claimants (projecting decades of payouts)

• Chronic, hard-to-measure conditions
  often face a more drawn-out and adversarial process.

Claimants should be prepared for a multi-stage dispute, not just a one-time denial. Early and detailed record-building—especially during the administrative appeal phase—is essential.

6.4 Reputation vs. Reality: The A++ Disconnect

Reliance Standard highlights its A++ financial rating from A.M. Best and affiliation with the Tokio Marine Group as signs of security and trust. But claimants often report an adversarial experience that contradicts this polished image.

This disparity is echoed in:

• Judicial opinions criticizing the company’s tactics

• Online reviews describing dismissiveness and poor communication

• Claimant forums warning others to “get legal help early”

This jarring disconnect can catch policyholders off guard—especially those who believed financial strength would mean fair treatment.

6.5 Emerging Case Law: Leveraging Precedent

New legal rulings are creating helpful precedent for claimants. Key examples include:

• The Krueger case, in which a court found that Reliance Standard misapplied a pre-existing condition exclusion for a POTS claim

• Increasing judicial recognition of the disabling effects of Long-COVID, even without objective test results

These rulings offer real-world examples of successful challenges and provide a roadmap for future claimants and their legal teams.

Successfully navigating a Reliance Standard LTD claim requires more than general disability knowledge—it demands a strategic approach based on the insurer’s specific patterns and weaknesses. From heightened documentation standards to known procedural pitfalls, understanding how Reliance Standard operates gives claimants the power to fight back effectively.

7. Strategies for Success When Dealing with Reliance Standard

Summary: Successfully navigating a Reliance Standard long-term disability (LTD) claim requires more than just submitting forms and medical records. To improve your chances—especially if you face a denial—you need a proactive strategy that anticipates Reliance Standard’s tactics, meets ERISA deadlines, and builds a compelling administrative record. Below are key tips for claimants preparing to submit, appeal, or litigate a disability claim against Reliance Standard.

✅ Build a Medical File That Goes Beyond Diagnoses

Don’t rely on diagnosis codes alone. Collect every relevant medical record, including:

• Treating physician notes

• Objective testing (MRI, CT, EMG, bloodwork)

• Hospital and rehab records

• Narrative reports specifically addressing your policy’s definition of disability

Have your treating doctors complete Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) forms or write statements that directly connect your symptoms to your inability to work—especially under both the “own occupation” and “any occupation” standards. Be specific about how symptoms impact functional abilities like sitting, standing, focusing, and interacting with others.

✅ Document Subjective Symptoms with Precision

If your condition includes pain, fatigue, cognitive fog, or dizziness, ask your doctors to:

• Describe how often symptoms occur

• Detail how severe and limiting they are

• Explain why objective tests may not reflect your real-world disability

Consistency across provider notes is critical. If your records reflect the same limitations from multiple sources, they are much harder for Reliance Standard to dismiss.

✅ Know Your Policy—Word for Word

Get a copy of your LTD certificate of coverage and summary plan description. Understand:

• How "Total Disability" is defined

• When the shift to "any occupation" occurs (typically after 24 months)

• What exclusions or limitations apply (e.g., pre-existing conditions, MND clauses)

• The deadlines for filing a claim and appealing a denial

Share policy definitions with your doctors so their reports use language that matches the plan.

✅ Prepare Early for the “Any Occupation” Evaluation

If your policy shifts to “any occupation” after 24 months, start preparing well before that date:

• Continue updating medical records regularly

• Secure documentation of ongoing limitations

• Consider obtaining a vocational expert report that explains why no realistic occupation fits your education, training, and impairments

Anticipating this review can prevent a sudden and unexpected termination of benefits.

✅ Keep Detailed Records of Every Interaction

Maintain a claimant log noting:

• Phone calls with claim representatives (dates, names, summary of conversation)

• Letters and emails sent or received

• Copies of all forms, records, and supporting documents submitted

• Proof of submission (certified mail, fax receipts, or email confirmations)

This paper trail becomes vital if your claim is delayed, denied, or litigated.

✅ Be Cautious with IMEs and FCEs

If Reliance Standard requires an Independent Medical Exam (IME) or Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE):

• Understand the purpose: to find a basis to deny

• Be honest—but consistent—about symptoms and limitations

• If you stop a task during an FCE, clearly explain why (e.g., pain, dizziness, risk of injury)

• If allowed, consider bringing a witness or attorney to the IME

These evaluations often carry outsized weight in denial decisions, so preparation is key.

✅ Protect Your Online Footprint

Assume Reliance Standard is monitoring your social media. Insurers have used photos and posts—even benign ones—to argue that claimants are not as disabled as they claim.

• Set privacy settings to maximum

• Avoid posting anything that could be misconstrued

• Don’t discuss your claim online, even in support groups

✅ Don’t Miss a Single Deadline

ERISA governs most group LTD claims and has strict deadlines. The most critical is the 180-day window to submit your administrative appeal after receiving a denial. Miss it, and you could lose your right to sue—even if the denial was flawed.

Set reminders, track correspondence, and when in doubt, file early.

✅ Track Reliance Standard’s Deadlines, Too

Reliance Standard must decide your appeal within 45 days (extendable to 90 with proper notice). Courts have penalized the insurer for missing these deadlines by applying de novo review, which gives claimants a legal edge.

• Log the date your appeal was submitted

• Watch for proper notice of extensions

• Document any delay or procedural failure

These timeline violations can become powerful leverage later.

✅ Get Legal Counsel Early—Not Just After a Denial

Reliance Standard is known for challenging claims and defending denials aggressively. The earlier you involve an experienced ERISA disability lawyer, the better your odds of:

• Building a strong administrative record

• Identifying insurer tactics before they become irreversible

• Preserving your right to litigate

• Avoiding mistakes with SSDI vendors connected to the insurer

At Dorian Law, we guide claimants from the first claim submission through appeal and litigation, especially in complex, high-risk cases.

Reliance Standard is not just any insurer—it’s one with patterns that demand vigilance. By understanding the company’s tendencies and proactively building a comprehensive, policy-specific record, claimants can dramatically improve their chances of approval or reversal.

Next, we’ll walk through what to do right now if you’ve been denied LTD benefits by Reliance Standard—and how Dorian Law can help you take the next step.

8. Conclusion: Securing Your Reliance Standard LTD Benefits & How Dorian Law PC Can Help

Summary: Claiming long-term disability (LTD) benefits from Reliance Standard can be a complex and uphill battle. Many claimants face unexpected denials, procedural traps, and insurer tactics designed to delay or limit payouts. With the right legal strategy—and an advocate who understands Reliance Standard’s unique patterns—you can protect your rights and improve your chances of success. Dorian Law PC is here to help.

8.1 The Challenges of Dealing with Reliance Standard Are Real

As detailed throughout this page, filing or appealing a long-term disability claim with Reliance Standard often involves more than proving you’re disabled. Common hurdles include:

• Difficult policy definitions and shifting standards

• Denials based on “insufficient” or subjective evidence

• Invasive claim investigations like IMEs and surveillance

• Strict ERISA procedures and tight deadlines

• Unexpected claim terminations—especially at the 24-month “any occupation” review

Even legitimate, well-supported claims can be denied or delayed. For many claimants, the experience is adversarial, confusing, and emotionally draining.

8.2 Why Strategic Legal Support Makes a Difference

Successfully obtaining or reinstating LTD benefits from Reliance Standard requires more than persistence—it takes strategic legal experience, a deep understanding of ERISA, and anticipation of the insurer’s likely moves.

That’s where Dorian Law PC comes in.

8.3 How Dorian Law PC Helps Clients Facing Reliance Standard

Deep Knowledge of ERISA and Insurance Tactics

We focus exclusively on insurance litigation and know how Reliance Standard handles LTD claims—especially those involving subjective conditions, vocational assessments, and paper review denials.

Strategic Claim and Appeal Building

We work with you and your treating doctors to create a comprehensive, evidence-rich record that directly addresses Reliance Standard’s likely objections—before they’re used against you.

Challenging Biased Reviews and Investigations

From IME rebuttals to surveillance spin, we know how to expose flaws in the insurer’s reasoning and protect you from mischaracterization or manipulation of your records.

Leveraging Procedural Violations

We track Reliance Standard’s ERISA deadlines and responsibilities. If they miss a deadline or fail to provide proper notice, we use that to strengthen your position in litigation—often gaining access to de novo review.

Proven Results Against Major Insurers

We’ve helped clients reverse wrongful denials and recover benefits through relentless advocacy, strategic negotiation, and federal court litigation.

Compassionate, Personalized Support

We understand how much is at stake. You’ll get clear guidance, real answers, and a legal partner who genuinely cares about your outcome.

You Don’t Have to Take on Reliance Standard Alone

If your Reliance Standard LTD claim has been denied, terminated, delayed, or unfairly reviewed, we’re here to help.

Call Dorian Law PC or fill out our secure online form to schedule your free case evaluation.
Let us fight for the benefits you’re owed—so you can focus on your health, not your insurer.