E-MAIL       207.671.0327

In Court

In the many years that Attorney Nadeau has represented claimants on disability insurance matters, she has filed countless Complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Maine in Bangor and Portland.

In fact, because she files more disability insurance cases for claimants than any other lawyer in Maine, she was appointed by the United States District Court to represent claimants on a three-person Committee charged with developing a unique, ERISA Disability Scheduling Order which the Court now uses in all ERISA disability cases.

In just recent years, she has prosecuted the following cases in the United States District Court:

Moretti v. UNUM

Suzanne Serreze v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

Michele Clark v. AETNA

Carol Parker v. UNUM

Debra Clark v. AETNA

Benjamin French v. UNUM

Douglas Grosso v. AETNA

Margaret Troost v. UNUM

James Alley v. AETNA

Tawni Shaw v. Life Insurance Company of North America

Dana Munn v. AETNA

Paul Philbrick v. Dearborn National

Robert Bickmore v. AETNA

David Stern v. CIGNA 

Jeffrey Goodwin v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

David Stern v. Life Insurance Company of North America

Laurie Doody v. Aetna

James Richard v. Sun Life Financial

 

Attorney Nadeau scored a significant victory for claimants in the case of David Hannington v. Sun Life and Health Insurance Company, 711 F.3d 226 (1st. Cir. 2013) cert. denied   134 S. Ct. 285 (2013) in which the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit limited the discretion of a disability insurer to interpret language outside of the policy.  This case also limits the types of deductions, “offsets,” a company is allowed to make from the benefits it pays. The First Circuit held that Sun Life could not deduct the amount of the claimant’s veteran’s benefits from the amount of the benefit it owed.  Sun Life petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the Hannington victory in the First Circuit. Attorney Nadeau successfully briefed the Supreme Court,  arguing that it should not review the case and thus, it should not overturn the total victory  for Mr. Hannington. The Supreme Court agreed.