Thrivent disability claim denial complaint to NC Insurance Commission, No investigation just echo of Thrivent’s statements, Did prove Thrivent bound by law and their misrepresentation


From Thrivent disability claim denial, My first experience Part 2.

“Thrivent’s inconsistency in complying with the contract and obfuscating facts will become a trend which will continue on in later dealings with them.

There is a clear pattern of incompetency on their part. The question is: Is it intentional. I.E. part of a insurance industry pattern of Delay and Deny?”

“On November 19, 2001, Dr. Aluisio filled out a Statement of Disability.

This form was sent to Thrivent along with a claim form.

Compare this statement with the diagnosis above and then the language of the contract.

This was my first warning that Thrivent may not be dealing fairly with me.

One of the first questions is why did Dr. Aluisio use “unable to work” instead of applying the contract language and his diagnosis?

Unable to work is a Social Security definition and perhaps it could have been an honest mistake.

It was not.

This was ultimately driven by Thrivent.

Here is the first proof that Thrivent was driven by incompetency and/or an agenda.

A letter from Thrivent dated December 7, 2001:

Notice that the correct language from the contract, unable to work at your regular occupation, is quoted.

At the bottom they state: “Dr. Aluisio has verified total disability beginning December 17, 2001, the date of your surgery.”


He put 12/17/01 beside of unable to work, which is not the contract dictate.

He also wrote “functional loss” in his diagnosis of my June 18, 2001 condition.

It was clear then as it is now, that Thrivent should have helped me for a least a few months past the 3 month elimination period.”

I went round and round with Thrivent getting nowhere. Thrivent refused to acknowledge that their claim form was wrong and misleading. Ann Weyenberg, in the letter dated December 7, 2001 quotes the contract correctly. The contract states unable to perform regular occupation not unable to work, Two totally different things.

An attorney advised me to file a complaint with the NC Insurance Commission. I did so on September 24, 2003.

After the so called investigation, the Commission responded.

As you can see, they take Thrivent’s word and do no real investigation. They did not contact me with questions or for more input.

However, it was not a total waste of time.

  • This proves that Thrivent believed they were bound by NC insurance laws.
  • This proves that Thrivent continued their incompetent/fraudulent position of using “unable to work” instead of the contract language and had the gaul to maintain their position with the NC Insurance Commission. Misrepresentation.
  • Finally, Thrivent’s Ann Weyenberg, who wrote the December 7, 2001 letter quoting the contract correctly then, sent the following to the Insurance commission in a letter dated .October 14, 2003.

Ann Weyenberg begins:

“I’d like to explain some provisions of his disability contract:”


Notice that after “An occupation means the covered person’s regular occupation,” “but work part-time during the first 24 months of total disability.” does not match the contract language or the letter from Ann Weyenberg (see above) dated December 7, 2001.

Thrivent misrepresented the policy to the NC Insurance Commission!

Incompetence or Fraud?



Similar Posts