Can Insurance Companies Surveil You During an ERISA Disability Claim?

Summary: Yes. Under ERISA, insurance companies can and do monitor social media and conduct in-person surveillance of long-term disability claimants. A single photo, post, or video clip — even taken out of context — can be used to challenge or deny your ERISA disability claim. Federal courts have repeatedly allowed insurers to rely on this evidence. Understanding the risks is an important part of protecting your ERISA benefits.

Why Do Insurance Companies Monitor Disability Claimants?

If you have an employer-sponsored long-term disability policy, your claim is most likely governed by ERISA — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Under ERISA, insurance companies are not limited to reviewing your medical records. When evaluating your ERISA disability claim, they actively look for any evidence that might suggest your limitations are less severe than reported. Two of their most common tools are social media monitoring and in-person surveillance.

Even when your condition is legitimate and well-documented, insurers can use isolated moments — especially those captured on social media — to question your credibility. Courts have allowed this, even when the evidence only shows brief or limited activity.

Why Is Social Media a Target for Disability Surveillance?

Unlike in-person surveillance, social media is inexpensive and allows insurers to build a narrative over time. They don’t need a complete picture — only something that appears inconsistent with your reported limitations.

Insurance companies may review:

• Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and LinkedIn profiles
• Photos, videos, and captions you post
• Content from friends or family that tags you
• Patterns across multiple posts over time

What you share online can be interpreted very differently than how you actually experience your condition. This does not mean you cannot have a life outside your illness. It does mean that what appears online can become part of how your claim is evaluated.

What Evidence Can an Insurance Company Use Against a Disability Claim?

Courts have upheld insurer decisions based on both social media activity and physical surveillance footage. Here are real examples showing how this evidence has been used.

How Has Social Media Been Used to Deny Disability Benefits?

Davis v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 699 F. App’x 287 (5th Cir. 2017) — The insurer relied on Facebook and LinkedIn activity showing the claimant was enrolled in an academic program and participated in outings such as visiting restaurants, movie theaters, and tourist attractions. The court held that reliance on this social media evidence, combined with other evidence, was not an abuse of discretion.

Wehner v. Standard Insurance Co., No. 1:17-cv-00655 (S.D. Ohio 2019) — Facebook activity depicting repeated physical activities, including construction-related work and fishing, was treated as evidence of a pattern inconsistent with reported limitations, contributing to the denial of benefits.

Can Physical Surveillance Be Used to Terminate Disability Benefits?

Howard v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., 929 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (M.D. Fla. 2013) — The insurer conducted approximately 60 hours of surveillance over six days, capturing the claimant driving roughly 248 miles, running errands, and shopping for extended periods without apparent difficulty. The court found these activities “grossly inconsistent” with her reported limitations and upheld termination.

Green v. Union Security Insurance Co., 646 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) — A two-day surveillance of a claimant with fibromyalgia showed him pumping gas, driving, and carrying VCR-sized boxes into a store. The court emphasized that this footage did not need to prove the claimant could work full-time — only that it could serve as objective evidence supporting the insurer’s decision.

Gielissen v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., No. 21-1377 (10th Cir. 2022) — Surveillance showed the claimant — who reported significant balance issues — walking a dog for at least twenty minutes in snowy conditions, without using an assistive device and while managing uneven terrain. The court found this supported termination of benefits.

Tsoulas v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 454 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2006) — The court upheld termination where surveillance of a claimant with multiple sclerosis showed her driving unassisted, walking without assistive devices, and independently completing errands, emphasizing that unexplained inconsistencies can support an insurer’s denial.

Marantz v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan, 679 F.3d 1091 (7th Cir. 2012) — Surveillance showed the claimant running, repeatedly bending and lifting heavy items, and completing multiple full days of activity, directly contradicting her claims about functional limitations. The court found the surveillance undermined her credibility and supported a finding of full-time sedentary work capacity.

McIntyre v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., No. 21-3063 (8th Cir. 2023) — The claimant suffered from Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. Despite her limitations, surveillance captured her participating in dog breeding and training, shopping, gardening, and running errands for up to five hours at a time. The court upheld termination, though one judge dissented, noting she walked with a limp and could freely change positions — something a sedentary office job would not allow.

Bernitz v. USAble Life, No. 24-1598 (1st Cir. 2025) — The claimant suffered from chronic back pain following multiple failed back surgeries. Surveillance captured him walking without signs of discomfort, driving, and working out with a personal trainer — including using a treadmill, lifting barbells, and using weight machines. The court upheld termination, finding the surveillance and lifestyle evidence supported the conclusion that he could perform his occupational duties.

Does Surveillance Evidence Tell the Whole Story of a Disability?

Not always — but that may not matter to an insurer. Social media posts and surveillance footage often capture isolated moments, not the full context of a person’s condition.

What surveillance typically cannot show:

• Pain or fatigue before or after the activity
• Recovery time required following exertion
• Whether the activity can be repeated consistently
• The difference between occasional activity and sustained, full-time work capacity

Even so, courts have repeatedly allowed insurers to rely on this type of evidence when evaluating disability claims. A brief, favorable-looking moment can carry significant weight, regardless of what it fails to capture.

What Should You Know to Protect Your Disability Claim?

Social media and surveillance do not tell the whole story — but they can significantly influence how insurers and courts evaluate your claim. In case after case, this type of evidence has contributed to denial or termination of benefits.

Understanding how this information can be taken out of context helps clarify the real risks it poses to your claim. If you have questions about your ERISA long-term disability claim or concerns about surveillance, contact us.