Insurance Services not rendered

[hornetmadness]

I started working at an old company that I had worked for prevouisly. I was re-hired on10/15/07 and my insurance coverage should of started on 11/1. I needed to use the insurance on 11/28. Thats when I found out that the insurance wasn't active because of what I now know was the paper work sent in showed me as a new hire, not a re-hire. The HR dept took two days to get the coverage that I was paying for to be active. I'm now trying to get my 27 days or insurance payments refunded. HR will not allow this as they say the effective coverage date was 11/01. Any advise as to how to go about getting my money back?

 

[Scooterdog]

I don't think you can get your money back. I could be wrong.

They admit you were covered:

HR will not allow this as they say the effective coverage date was 11/01.

Is the insurance no covering you on 11/28? I would think they would have to or the company can let them go.

If they are refusing to cover you on that date, and the company is saying you were covered, you can call your State Insurance Commisioner. Make a complaint, insurance comanies don't like that.

 

[cbg]

I'm a little confused. Help me out here.

What does the policy (that's the insurance policy, not the company policy) say about re-hires vs. new hires? Is there a longer wait for one than the other?

If you can quote it directly, that will be ideal; if you can't, give me as accurate a paraphrase as possible.

BTW, I have been administering employer-sponsored health insurance for 27 years.

 

[hornetmadness]

Hi Scooterdog,

Its more like they said I was covered but wasn't until I called and got them to activate it 27 days later. Basically I paid for 30 days of coverage and only got 3 that I was actually covered.

 

[cbg]

You and I were posting at the same time.

It sounds as if the insurance was activated retroactively. In that case, any bills you incurred during the month of November can be resubmitted for payment. You still have all 30 days coverage.

 

[hornetmadness]

cbg,

Thats what the HR dept stated also, but my argument is that it I was not covered under the policy for 27 days (which I paid for). To me insurance was not active until 11/28. Retroactive coverage should not of been done.

They tried to explain it like this.
If I bought a car on 11/1 and didn't turn it on until 11/28 I do not get a refund of the last 27 days. Which is correct in their eyes.

I see it like this.
I bought a car on 11/1 and it was not actually mine until 11/28 (was not on paper or in my hands). I should not have to pay for the 27 days that I did not have the car.

Make sense?

 

[cbg]

You're free to argue your position with HR, but the law is not going to take your side. The law is not going to force them to make the coverage effective 11/28 and repay you the premiums. Unlike the car analogy, you do have the option of making use of the insurance by resubmitting any bills. If you choose not to, nothing in the law is going to force the employer to do things your way.

 

[hornetmadness]

Thanks cbg and Happy new Year!