Jump to Navigation

Wilmington Employee Benefits Fraud Lawyers

There are many reasons employees have to fight to get benefits for which they paid and were promised. In most cases, there is a dispute or problem with the insurance company denying, delaying or underpaying benefits for health insurance, disability, etc. In some cases, however, there is actual misconduct by the employer, which causes the employee to lose his or her benefit rights.

We Protect The Rights Of Delaware

If you believe you have been the victim of benefit fraud by your employer, consult the lawyers at Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law. We are a dedicated team of employment law professionals with more than 19 years of experience representing the interests of Delaware employees. You are entitled to the benefits you are seeking, and we will stand on your side, helping you fight for what is yours.

We handle fraud cases involving:

  • Intentionally including language in a benefit insurance policy that will never be enforced
  • Giving employees false, inaccurate or misleading information about what is actually covered in their benefit plans
  • All other instances of intentional fraud

If, but for the conduct of your employer, you would receive the benefits you need, you could have legal recourse under ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) or other federal laws. Contact us for more information and to help you recover your hard-earned and rightful benefits.

Our services are not limited to employees. We also provide counsel, protection and guidance for employers facing allegations of fraud. We can help you prepare an effective defense and protect your company.

Contact Our Delaware Employment Fraud Attorneys

At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, our Wilmington team is here to support you. Contact us at 302-529-0121 to arrange an in-person meeting. Our office is conveniently located in the suburbs just outside the city of Wilmington.

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy