A letter from Patricia Peard, attoney for UNUM regarding my letter 01/02/99 to her regarding my request of from the court for a preliminary injunction requiring back payment owed me by UNUM.
My response to this letter follows.

Response from UNUM's attorney Patricia Peard to a letter dated
and subsequent response to MS Peard's reply.

Dear Dr. Morris,

I received your letter indicating that you intend to file a motion for a
preliminary injunction against UNUM.  Your letter does not represent a
good faith attempt to "confer" and that obligation is your burden under
the rule, not mine as you attempt to suggest by your ultimatum that I
confer with you within five days.

UNUM will not agree to pay any benefits to you pending the out come of
the lawsuit as you are not entitled to any additional benefits under the
terms of your policies.

Sincerely yours,
Patricia Peard
cc: Ann M. Courtney (UNUM's In-house lawyer)

response to this letter.

(Well obviously there is nothing to confer about if they don't think
they have done anything wrong.  But I don't understand why my letter to
her didn't constitute good faith.  Maybe she wanted an engraved

Here's my response:
       Judy Morris, MD
       261 Bumstead Rd.
       Monson, MA  01057
       January 12, 1999

Patricia A. Peard
Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson, PA
100 Middle Street
Portland, ME  04101-5029

Dear Ms. Peard,

Obviously your definition of "good faith" is similar to UNUM's
definitions of "disability" and "proof," whatever you want it to be.  I
asked you to call me if you wished to confer.  Instead you send me a
letter stating that my notice was not in good faith.

You have made your position and UNUM's position clear, that despite my
contentions, my doctors contentions, my insurance agent's contentions,
my employer's contentions, the law and legal precedent and the
recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and National
Institutes of Health, you will not back down on your stance that I have
not met the standard of proof required in my policy.

Furthermore you continue to ignore the fact that I have asked repeatedly
for UNUM to clarify what they would consider proof of my disability
within the wording of my contracts.

Just for your information I would like to quote the definition of Good
Faith and Bad Faith contained in Black's Law Dictionary.

"Good Faith: Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no
technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among
other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of
design to defraud or to seek and unconscionable advantage, and an
individual's personal good faith is concept of his own mind and inner
spirit and, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his
protestations alone.  Honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge
of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry.  An honest
intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of
another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of
all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render
transaction unconscientous.  In common usage this term is ordinarily
used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of purpose, freedom
from intention to defraud, and, generally speaking, means being faithful
to one's duty or obligation."

"Bad Faith: The opposite of 'good faith'," generally implying or
involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or
deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some
contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one's
rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive.  Term "bad
faith" is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies
the conscious doing of a wrong because of a dishonest purpose or moral
obliquity; it is different from the negative idea of negligence in that
it contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design or ill will.  An intentional tort which results from breach of
duty imposed as consequence of relationship established by contract."

Notwithstanding your "duty" to zealously defend your clients, if you can
honestly say and feel that you and UNUM are dealing with me and the
other claimants I've encountered in Good Faith, I would like to know
what dictionary you are using.

My letter, sent to you return receipt so I would know you received it,
of my intent to file a preliminary injunction and giving you the
opportunity to call me to confer most certainly was made in good faith.
It was certainly more of an effort than the phone call you faked and
then lied about to the Court stating that you left a message on my
answering machine several days prior to filing your motion to dismiss.

But if you insist, we will present the evidence to the judge and jury
and let them determine who is dealing in good faith and who is not.  It
is fine with me if these "conferences" occur in writing.


Judy Morris, MD

cc: all defendants and their attorneys

Top of Page

Judydoc's Diary Page

Judydoc's Home Page

Insurance Page

Uncivilization and its Discontents

Home Page

Email Judy Morris
at: judydoc AT worldnet DOT att DOT net

Email me, Bill Hammel
at: bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us

The URL for this document is:
Created: January 13, 1999
Last Updated: May 28, 2000