Manulife Group Benefits Insurance Reviews

In 2010 I had to leave work due to serious health issues. Manulife provides the group health insurance provided by my employer. The application was correct and accurate. I received benefits for the first 4 years, after which a return to work is deemed unsuitable and they are obliged to provide benefits until the claimant is 65. They required testing at this 4 year mark by their own selected health expert and his report *supported* my claim. Despite this, I received a letter saying my benefits were being terminated as I was (miraculously) fit to return immediately to full time employment at my former job. There was no medical evidence to support this decision, quite the opposite. Further, the policy included a clause that claimants do not have to take employment that pays less than 75% of their former salary; all medical reports indicated that the type of work I could now perform without risk of triggering another episode of serious illness did not pay anywhere near 75% of my former (management) salary. The Manulife employee assigned to my file refused to acknowledge the existence of this clause in the policy. Another Manulife employee involved in the file was caught out saying one thing to me and another thing to my medical care provider in an effort to use semantics to cheat me out of my benefits. In short, he lied through his teeth. It was shocking. I had to hire a lawyer to fight their decision to cancel as it was clear anything I pointed out in my defence was being ignored. The lawyer indicated the run-around she was getting from them as she prepared the file was just short of bad faith bargaining. In the end, the unjustified cancellation was reversed - but not before I had to pay over $5,000 I couldn't afford to the lawyer (who basically made the same arguments I had) and had gone through months of intense stress that in and of itself made me more ill. If I had been unable to afford a lawyer, I would have lost my benefits, plain and simple. The truth played no part in it. I have read that disability insurers routinely cancel valid claimants as some of them will not know how to or have the stamina to fight back, and for those who do, it's much cheaper for the insurance provider to deal with an internal review of the termination decision or a court case than pay out substantial benefits to someone in their 30s or 40s 'til age 65. So is Manulife worse than other disability providers? I don't know. I wouldn't trust any of them after my experience.

My employer switched from GWL to Manulife a few months ago for benefits coverage. Apparently Manulife was significantly cheaper for the employer and nothing would change in terms of our benefits. This has not been true. From my perspective and based on my terrible experiences thus far, the reason that they are cheaper is because the employees are now paying for the difference. For example, Manulife has disallowed registered massages because the massage therapist obtained their certification in BC instead of in AB where they practise. This was frustrating because Manulife and my employer did not document this absurd requirement anywhere and now. My employer indicated that they were not aware of this policy so they actually refunded me for the massage. They have told me to get all of the details regarding the Reg Massage Therapist before I book a massage which is such a pain and creates extra stress. In addition, Manulife's website is down on weekends. On Sat, you cannot submit claims after 8pm and Sun, after 5pm. As a parent that works fulltime, it is very difficult to make time to process these claims except on weekends after my young kids have gone to bed. For me, I have actually stopped using my benefits because the thought of trying to process the claim and what Manulife will come back with causes me instant anxiety. Ugh