Insurers regularly use video surveillance in disability cases to ferretout bogus claims, but a federal appeals court has now ruled that whenthe surveillance is continued even after it has garnered no evidence offraud, the insurer’s ultimate decision to cut off benefits may besubject to “heightened scrutiny.”

“While surveillance is an aggressive tactic, nothing prohibits its use,”U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote in the 57-page opinion in Postv. Hartford Insurance Co.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]