Federal Court Reinstates Benefits, Rejects Unum’s Narrow View of CEO’s Occupation

In Logan v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. & Unum Group, No. 1:24-CV-113, 2025 WL 2723542 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2025), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the ERISA record and ordered reinstatement of his long-term disability (LTD) benefits. The opinion hinges on how an insured “occupation” must be assessed in the ERISA context, and whether Unum’s medical and vocational analyses matched the actual demands of that occupation.

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Logan served as President and CEO of a software company. His LTD coverage was through a policy underwritten by Paul Revere (a Unum affiliate). After developing serious cardiovascular and related health conditions culminating in open-heart surgery, Logan applied for disability benefits. Unum initially approved benefits but later terminated them in March 2021 on the basis that Logan no longer qualified under the policy’s definition of disability.

Unum’s decision was based on medical reviewers who believed Logan could perform a sedentary role requiring minimal travel and who interpreted Logan’s CEO position as not requiring significant exertion or frequent travel. Logan, in contrast, offered vocational testimony (and external data) showing CEOs typically work 60+ hours per week with significant travel, and medical testimony (including a functional capacity evaluation) that he could not sustain the demands of his CEO duties.

Because the policy did not vest Unum with discretion in interpreting claims, the court applied a de novo standard of review.

The Meaning of “Occupation” Under the Policy

A central issue was how to define Logan’s occupation for purposes of evaluating disability. The court adopted a framework that acknowledges the “occupation” must be judged not by some theoretical or minimal version of a job, but by the realistic requirements of the role as commonly performed. While the policy refers to “important duties” of “your occupation,” the court accepted plaintiff’s vocational evidence showing what CEO positions generally entail—i.e., heavy hours, frequent travel—and found those are part of the job’s definition in Logan’s case.

Unum’s vocational evidence, by contrast, relied on a narrow, sedentary conception of the CEO role without adequately supporting that view through industry data or credible sources. The court rejected it as speculative and under‐supported.

Improper Termination of Benefits

Having established that Logan’s occupation includes substantial hours and travel, the court found Unum’s denial was flawed for several reasons:

1. Mismatch between medical opinions and occupational demands
   Unum’s reviewing physicians assumed Logan could perform sedentary tasks with minimal travel. None of them evaluated whether he could meet the more strenuous demands of a high-level executive role requiring travel, prolonged hours, and managerial oversight.
2. Travel requires more than sedentary exertion
   Even Unum’s own vocational consultant acknowledged that frequent travel involves physical demands inconsistent with a purely sedentary posture. That undercuts Unum’s logic of restricting Logan to sedentary classification.
3. Credible evidence of impairment
   Logan’s medical evidence—including treating physician opinions and the functional capacity evaluation—supported his inability to sustain the demands of his CEO role. The court found his evidence sufficient to carry his burden under de novo review.
4. Leisure or incidental activities were not persuasive
   Unum pointed to Logan’s reported hobbies or limited activities to argue against disability, but the court observed that those were aspirational or not undertaken consistently. The court declined to let leisure activities override the weight of medical and vocational evidence aligned with the occupational definition.

On the record before it, the court concluded that Unum’s termination lacked a rational basis and granted judgment for Logan.

If Paul Revere Life Insurance Company or Unum has denied your long-term disability claim, you do not have to face the process alone. These insurers have a long history of wrongfully denying or terminating LTD benefits, and courts frequently hold them accountable when they fail to properly evaluate claims.

Our firm has extensive experience challenging wrongful LTD denials and securing the benefits our clients are entitled to under ERISA and private disability policies.

📞 Contact Roberts Disability Law today to schedule a consultation and learn how we can help protect your rights and fight back against unfair insurance practices.