It’s no hyperbole to say that technology has changed the way we live. Everything is a lot easier now because of it. Email ensures that we can send messages to other people in mere seconds. Lives have been extended because of advances in medical technology. DNA analysis allows the criminal justice system to be more accurate in its convictions. The list goes on and on.
But like all great things, there are always disadvantages. Take Facebook for example; it’s a ridiculously addictive time-killer that keeps us connected to our friends and family while at the same time draining our society of countless work hours. Well, you can now add tattletale to the list of ways in which Facebook can ruin your life.
The negative effects of social media websites is not a new thing and this certainly is not the first time Facebook has been accused of being the catalyst responsible for destroying a person’s life. But as far as I can tell this is the first instance I’ve heard of in which Facebook has been used by an insurance company as the basis for the denial of benefits.
This case is especially important because the woman, Nathalie
Blanchard, whose benefits were denied, claimed she suffered from depression and
therefore was granted long-term sick leave to deal with her issues. The problem was that photo updates of her on
Facebook showed her out having fun all over town.
Why is that important you ask? Well because she was essentially using Facebook for its exact purpose, to update her friends and family on what she’s been up to, which presents (or rather reinforces) the particularly frightening scenario that even the most mundane and common acts on Facebook can spell trouble given the right situation. Moreover, the same can easily be said about all social media websites in general.
While this is discussion on the pros and cons of Facebook and social media is interesting and all, you guys out there may be wondering what place it has on a law blog; particularly what legal recourse may be available to Blanchard? Well, I’ll tell you, quit nagging me, damn…
As far as I can tell, the best bet she, or anyone in her situation, has is the good ol’ argument of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is inherent in all contracts. For those of you who were too lazy to click on that last link, the covenant basically ensures that those entering into any contract must make a good faith effort to adhere to all the terms laid out by the contract. This means not only performing your part of the deal, but also not doing anything that would make it so that the other party can’t perform their end of the deal or anything in general that would make the contract impossible to fulfill.
The classic law school example is making a contract to clean your room when your clock shows a particular time, and then breaking your clock so that it can never reach that time, thereby making the contract impossible to perform. This covenant is especially important in insurance cases due to the accepted opinion that insurance carriers are assumed to be in a better bargaining position than their clients, and as far as I know, courts have always primarily used the covenant in insurance cases.
So how does it apply to Blanchard’s case? Well, it would require that her agent make a full inquiry into whether the Facebook photos of her having fun were really indicative of her having recovered from her depression. Blanchard makes a good argument that she was simply trying to feel better by going out; that being outside doesn’t necessarily equal to her depression being cured. By invoking the covenant, she could argue that her agent didn’t do a substantive enough inquiry since the agent seemingly based her denial on only one factor according to the article: her Facebook photos, thereby breaking the covenant.
I think a court would most likely agree with her argument and force the insurance company to get more concrete evidence to support their denial.
But then again, this case is from
Anyway, the second moral of this story (it seems) is to also pay attention to what jurisdiction you’re in.
Comments