Thrivent Sandy Headington letter fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation, Sent to NC Insurance Commission, Uses false provisions to attack


Is Sandy Headington, Sandy Kruse, the same person who slandered and libeled me in 2002 after a phone conversation regarding my first claim with Thrivent?

Every internet search that I did indicated that Sandy Headington also went by the name Sandy Kruse and that Sandy Kruse went by the name Sandy Headington.

Sandy Kruse, during the conversation in 2002 also seemed to be confused by the term earned income.

On August 10, 2018, one day apart from the outside attorney’s email stating  “Please know that Thrivent’s hope in commencing arbitration is that your long-standing dispute with the Society can be resolved with finality, which is to the benefit of you and Thrivent alike.” , Sandy Headington sent a letter to the NC Insurance Commission which completely misrepresented the main policy provision governing the definition of disability.

She then went on an attack rampage using the false assumptions. Much of the letter contained outright lies.

Based on the premise “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” I could not possibly take their request for arbitration seriously.

Ms. Headington included a copy of the contract provisions, as Thrivent usually did for my edification and then a few paragraphs later totally misquoted the provisions.

The contract states:

“The contract defines total disability as a disability:
which results from injury or sickness; and
which prevents a covered person from performing an occupation (defined below) for wage or profit; and
during which the covered person does no work for earned income.”

“An occupation means the covered person’s regular occupation or employment during the first 24 months of total disability.”

This is simple. Prior to disability the occupation is for wage or profit and after there can be no earned income.

Be prepared for your jaw to drop.

Sandy Headington wrote:

“Wells submitted a claim for disability beginning February 27, 2009. Wells reported his occupation as semi-retired . Wells noted he was in the process of preparing two properties for sale, but was not able to produce any financial documentation to support that this was work for earned income.

The contract defined Earned Income to mean: salary, wages, commissions, fees; or other remuneration actually earned from any form of employment. When a person is not employed for earned income, the regular occupation is an unemployed/retired person. For unemployed/retired occupations, we review for eligibility based on the ability to perform the normal daily activities of a retired person. Examples of daily activities include cooking, cleaning, reading, laundry, watching TV, shopping, etc. Since Wells specifically referred to retirement, and he did not show any work for earned income, Thrivent considered his regular occupation to be a retired person.”

Most of my life I worked for wages, earned income.

In the years leading up to disability I was working primarily for profit, real estate investing. And some of that profit was non taxable.

Ms. Headington bases her entire argument on earned income which is not a requirement of the regular occupation (wage or profit) and is only used in the contract in the context of not earning after disability.

A complete misrepresentation of the contract!

From a letter sent by an attorney to Thrivent on August 21, 2009:

“Your denial letter of July 29, 2009 states the claim is being denied because of a problem with the attending physician’s statement. The records submitted by Mr. Wells show that he was semi-retired, and that he was still preparing real estate for sale in North Carolina. It is for that reason that the attending physician, Dr. Hartman, supplied a statement relating to the activities of an employed person. As noted, Mr. Wells was engaged in the sale of real estate, but there is, it seems to me, an additional problem with your denial letter. It appears that Dr. Hartman’s statement is on a form supplied by Thrivent. Again, since Mr. Wells was self-employed at the time the disability arose, that would appear to be the appropriate form. It is at best disingenuous for Thrivent to deny the disability claim because Thrivent did not get a statement form (from) the physician about the daily activities of a retired or unemployed person when Thrivent: (a) supplied the form; and (b) when the facts show that Mr. Wells was still pursuing work activities when the disability arose.”

The “Alice in Wonderland” letter, though frustrating on top of mountains of frustrations, was a blessing.

It revealed Thrivent’s hand, their bizarre behavior, requests and attitudes.

Has anyone in upper management looked at this?

Apparently not.

I have not yet received an apology.


Similar Posts