Conference 7.286::digital

    
    Mo money,Mo money....Yes, I was also skeptical until I called CIGNA.
    A refund and the cost of optional life insurance for me and a
    (rider)for my 2 kids from CIGNA is cheaper than the previous John
    Hancock and my private insurer. This was a nice little surprise.
    
    Unfortunately my HMO went up about 20% but thats another rathole...

    
    So does anyone have a formula for calculating the amount of refund.
    jeff

    
    A co-worker of mine chose to drop the add-on life insurance back in the
    June/July timeframe. He had been in the program for several years. He
    is now being told, that since he was not enrolled as of the magical
    date of August 17 that he gets no refund at all. That makes no sense to
    me. I would like to know where his money goes?
    
    Rodney

re: .-1

> I would like to know where his money goes?

It would appear, that it goes "to the rest of us". :^)

Seriously, they had to pick some arbitrary date to determine who the recipients
would be (unless they could somehow figure it out for everyone who's left DEC
since the inception of the program, which is probably pretty tough to do.)
August 17th, 1993 seems just about as arbitrary as anything, I think.

Now, don't go makin' waves about this, though, or the SLT will figure they need
to take action and they won't distribute it at all. :^)

-Jack

    re:-1
    
    Does the SLT have anything to say about it? Didn't someone say these
    were excess premiums?
    
    Ken

    
    Re: .3 
    
    Choosing a date may be somewhat arbitrary but is a common practice.
    Mutual fund companies pay dividends to shareholders of record as
    of a certain date.  Banks pay interest on funds based on certain
    dates, etc.  They have to have some way of doing it.  To keep track
    of everyone who was ever a member of the group and when they ceased
    membership and prorating a return to them would be a nightmare.
    
    
    Re: .4
    
    Jack, This is OUR money, not Digital's so the SLT should stay
    out of it.  ;^)
    
    Steve
    

re .6:

The ex-dividend date of a stock is known in advance, so investors can plan
around it.  I'm sure that if the base noter's friend had known that he would
lose out by cancelling when he did, he would have waited.

BTW, doesn't this payment simply prove that the old life insurance premiums
were just too high?

    
    re, .7 - Yes, we Digits are harder to kill than Hancock thought.
            We should keep this trait - we may need it !  bb
    

    I left the plan about 2 years ago. I was in it at 4 or 5x for about
    10 years. Don't you guys spend all my money in one place now. ;-) 8).
    
    fred deady

    Hey! This is really great stuff. I've been with Digital 18 years but
    can't remember when I went to X5. The dollar amount is really "nice".
    I walked around the office asking people what they thought of
    this...but thay hadn't even opened their packages. I do believe some
    left early for home to check. I did caution them that it appears on
    the 1 piece of paper in the back of the brochure in very small bold
    print.
    Do you think they should have put "REFUND DUE" on the front of the
    package???
    
    Rick

    All this talk about cash refunds and the excitement of it all is really
    good. However, we seem to be losing sight of what this is all about.
    (I'm guilty too. YEAH YEAH PANT PANT FOUND MONEY NO TAXES !!!!! :-)  )
    
    The important thing of this is that we must respond to the rest of this
    to continue to have optional amounts of life insurance so that our
    beneficiaries will at least have a decent amount of money to tide them
    over should something happen to us. It seems to me that a lot of folks
    haven't opened their packets at all until the words "Cash Refund" were
    mentioned.
    
    If one doesn't respond by Nov. 19, 1993, then one will automatically
    receive the company paid life insurance up to $50,000 dollars. Over
    that and Uncle Sam takes another bite out of you for what Digital
    provides. You aren't taxed on your own contribution. The really good
    thing for me is that my Life Insurance rates are going down by $2.00 a
    week. The money from John Hancock is nice, but if one wants to continue
    or adjust the optional plan, then worry about the JH check in January
    and CIGNA's plan now.
    
    PJ

    Some very important points:
    
    1. Insurance rates are based on the mortality rates for the insured
       population.  The mortality rates for insurance plans with open 
       enrollment is higher than insurance plans where physicals are
       required.  I am fortunate enough to have low blood pressure,
       low body fat, and never smoked.  Hence I my rates are 60%
       lower than the CIGNA. I did shop around. 
    
    2. The high premiums and low payouts were fully disclosed to all
       employees. One could have made a reasonable guess that the
       excess premiums would be returned to employees in some form.
    
    Based on the attached Annual Summary Reports,  one can infer that
    Digital takes a very conservative approach on life insurance and
    assumes a higher mortality rate than it has experienced. Digital also
    attempts to maintain lower rates for its older employees:
	For that reason there has been a surplus for past few years.

		Premiums 	 Benefits 
	FY      Paid         	 Paid
	-----   -----------     -----------
	1993    $22,260,396	$18,352,699
	1992    $22,715,785	$15,846,812
	
	Form 5500 line 9e (filed with the IRS) shows 

	"Dividends or retroactive 
		rate refunds due:	$42,334,575"

    	Since Digital is terminating the plan with John
    	Hancock and going with Cigna, it needs to return the surplus to it's
    	participants.

	Gim



To:	@Distribution_List
CC:
Subj:	 YOUR SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORTS

From:	NAME: DICS_DIST <DICS_DIST@NEST@MRGATE@NROMTS@NRO>
To:	See Below


YOUR SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORTS
For U.S. Employees of Digital Equipment Corporation	   May 1992

...

Group Insurance Plan
     This is a summary of the annual report of the Digital Equipment
Corporation Group Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Plan
04-2226590:501 for July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991. The annual report
has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service, as required under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Insurance Information
     The Plan has a contract with John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Company to pay life and accidental death and dismemberment claims
incurred under the terms of the Plan. The total premiums paid for the
Plan year ending June 30, 1991 were $22,715,785.
     Because it is an "experience-rated" contract, the premium costs
are affected by, among other things, the number and size of claims.
Of the total insurance premiums paid for the Plan year ending June 30,
1991, the premiums paid under such an "experience-rated" contract were
$22,715,785, and the total of all benefit claims paid under the
experience-rated contract during the Plan year was $15,846,812.

From:	WRKSYS::MLMAIL::MLMAIL::MRGATE::
        "MROMTS::NROMTS::MRGATE::NEST::DICS_DIST" 19-MAY-1993 21:15:31.22
To:	@Distribution_List
CC:	
Subj:	YOUR SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORTS

From:	NAME: DICS_DIST <DICS_DIST@NEST@MRGATE@NROMTS@NRO>
To:     See Below

YOUR SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORTS
For U.S. Employees of Digital Equipment Corporation          May 1993
         
...

Group Insurance Plan
     This is a summary of the annual report of the Basic, Optional and 
Dependent Life Insurance and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Plan 
04-2226590:501 for the period July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. The 
annual report has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service, as 
required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
(ERISA).
         
Insurance Information
     The Plan has a contract with John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance 
Company to pay all life and accidental death and dismemberment claims 
incurred under the terms of the Plan. The total premiums paid for the 
Plan Year ending June 30, 1992 were $22,260,396.
     Because it is an "experience-rated" contract, the premium costs 
are affected by, among other things, the number and size of claims.  
Of the total insurance premiums paid for the Plan Year ending June 30, 
1992, the premiums paid under such an "experience-rated" contract were 
$22,260,396, and the total of all benefit claims paid under the 
experience-rated contract during the Plan year was $18,352,699.
    2. The 

	... owed for excess coverage.  One sentence about a 44 year old
with 10,000 in excess coverage doesn't make it real easy to extrapolate
for 42, 48, 50, etc.

    
    Re: .7
    
    > The ex-dividend date of a stock is known in advance, so investors
    > can plan around it.
    
    Perhaps, but it isn't something that they turn themselves inside out
    to publish.  I own shares in three different mutual funds and each
    time that I noted a planned date for declaring dividends it was a
    detail buried within a more general communication.  I have never
    received a communication explicitly intended to point it out.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    
    

    
    
    Hell Fred, I may even buy you lunch, thanks. ;')
    
    
    
    Mike

    Call me a worrier but,after looking in dis-belief at my "projected"
    refund,I really can't believe that someone who got TFSO  say last
    summer and didn't sign anything saying he/she won't sue DEC will not
    indeed bring some sort of lawsuit to get a "piece of the pie".
    
    Ken

    
    Re: .16
    
    Perhaps, but is it worth it.  I've been at DEC since February 1981
    and paying for coverage at 4X my salary all that time.  It's a fair
    amount of change that I'm getting back, but not enough so I'd go
    through the hassle of a lawsuit and then seeing the lawyer get 
    a good piece of it.  Heck, I'd rather see DEC get the whole thing
    than some lawyer get any ;^)
    
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    
    After 17 1/2 years in the optional life insurance plan, I canceled
    it last February.  The reason was that I could get cheaper, fixed rate
    term insurnace outside for less $.  I am not getting any "excess
    premium" returned to me because I was not enrolled as of August 17th.
    
    I believe I am entitled to a protion of this money and spent 17 phone
    calls trying to find someone that knew how it was being distributed and
    what I needed to do to contest the decision.   
    
    The amount being refunded is equal to approximately 59.6% of the total
    premiums you put into the plan.
    
    The process to appeal the decision is to send a letter stating the
    issue you have and sending it to:
    
    		Digital Equipment Corporation
    		c/o U.S. Employee Benefits Programs Manager
    		MSO2-1/D2
    		111 Powder Mill Road
    		Maynard,  MA   01754
    
    This appeals process is explained in Section 14.6 of the U.S. Benefits
    Book.
    
    
    If you are in this situation, you should voive your concern and send an
    appeal.  The excess premium being distributed came out of your pockets
    and you should be entitled to it.
    
    Dave

    By the way, the name of the Employee Benefits Manager is
    Paul Cornelius @MSO. 
    
    Regards,

re: .16, Ken

To the best of my knowledge, being TFSO'ed wasn't sufficient to disqualify
anyone for the refund. They would have had to have been TFSO'ed _AND_
decided not to continue the optional Life Insurance coverage. The option
has been available through all of the packages, I believe. Their choices
were no different than any of the rest of us.

-Jack

re Note 2760.6 by NASZKO::MACDONALD:

>     They have to have some way of doing it.  To keep track
>     of everyone who was ever a member of the group and when they ceased
>     membership and prorating a return to them would be a nightmare.

        It doesn't seem that hard to keep track of everyone
        individually -- after all, they have to keep track of the
        total contributions of everyone who IS receiving the refund
        -- it's just more information, and perhaps only a small
        integer factor more information.

        I do wonder how long they keep this information for those who
        leave the program, but I'd bet that it is far longer than a
        few months!

        Bob

re Note 2739.113 by WLDBIL::KILGORE:

>     Hidden at the very back of the package was a single white sheet
>     that was laid out as a checklist, to be used when you phone in to make your
>     insurance selections. At about the center of the first side of this
>     sheet was an item, labeled something like "balance" and with a cash
>     amount; under that were two options, "send to you as a check" and "deposit
>     to accumulation account", or words to that effect.
  
        I was struck by the apparent lack of information about this
        other than that line on the work sheet (and the discussion in
        this conference!).

        For example, what happens if you take no action?  Do you
        still get the refund?  Is it lost?  Is it rolled into that
        cask accumulation thing by default (and losing, what is it,
        2%)?  What happens if you take one action with the telephone
        system and then change your mind (within the enrollment
        period) -- can you change your mind?

        Bob

    You can change your mind on any of your selections before the end of
    the enrollment period - 11/19.
    

    Taking the suggestion of note 2760.18 (SALEM::PATHIAKIS), I sent the
    following memo to Corporate Benefits.  I hope that there will be a
    positive response.
    
    
    
    
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     09-Nov-1993 11:54am EST
                                        From:     DAVID REEVES @CLO
                                                  REEVES.DAVID
                                        Dept:     SI Program Management
                                        Tel No:   (216) 765-2977

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( Paul Cornelius @MSO )


Subject: Regarding Optional Life Insurance Rebate                    


Mr. Paul Cornelius

Digital Equipment Corp.
c/o U.S. Employee Benefits Programs Manager  MSO2-1/D2
111 Powdermill Road
Maynard, MA 01754

Dear Paul,

I am writing to express my disappointment regarding the decision to rebate 
Optional Life Insurance payments to only those employees still using the 
benefit on August 17, 1993.  I am formally requesting that Digital 
re-consider its decision and include all current Digital employees who 
participated in the program.

I have 16 years of service with Digital and for nearly 14 of those years, I 
participated in the optional life insurance program at the 5X level.  
Approximately 2 years ago, due to the non-competitive rates, I stopped 
using the program.  I gather from one of our notes files (HUMAN::DIGITAL), 
that a number of long-time Digital employees are in the same situation.

It appears to me that by excluding long-term participants who recently 
declined coverage, Digital is using our "over-payments" to increase the 
payout to others who remained in the program.  The result is that personal 
initiative is not being rewarded appropriately.  In the midst of major 
changes in so many parts of Digital, I hope that we will work hard to 
preserve morale and fairness as much as possible, which in this case 
involves allowing all Digital employees who used the program to benefit 
from the program. 

I look forward to hearing from you that this directive is being 
re-considered so that all Digital employees who participated in the the 
Optional Life program will be able to benefit from the lower claim rates 
that we enjoyed during that period.

regards,

David Reeves
Program Manager
Cleveland, Ohio

DTN 431-2977



    
    

    
    I was waiting for this to happen.  It would be a huge mistake to try
    and change the rebate policy.  In fact, most of us have already phoned
    in our acceptance of the rebate and are well on our way to spending
    it for Christmas.
    
    I understand that people feel cheated and I hope that you can get some
    satisfaction from JH or CIGNA or DIGITAL, but as far as MOST people are
    concerned, the rebate has been offered and accepted.
    
    Can you imagine what would happen?  You know those rebates we promised,
    well we changed our minds and are rethinking the situation.  Pretend
    you never heard from us!
    
    Paul
    

    RE: .24  I counted one other person, not "a number" of other people.
    
    
    
    Also, I think it's a mistake calling attention to the source of your
    information.  Address the issue if you must (that is understandable),
    but don't draw attention this way.
    
    
    Regards,

    HEADLINE:
    
    	Rabble rousers in HUMANE::DIGITAL stir up trouble leading
    management to withdraw life insurance rebate.
    
    

    
    RE:
    
>    Can you imagine what would happen?  You know those rebates we promised,
>    well we changed our minds and are rethinking the situation.  Pretend
>    you never heard from us!
    
    Well if past experience is anything to go by expect a
    retraction/alteration of the policy. witness:
    
    	- Virtual offices
    	- Vacation
    	- Banning Employee Interest notesfiles
    	- Tuition remimbursement
    	- Banning dialin (ongoing)
    
    I must admit it seems very unfair for past participants not to benefit.
    Guess they couldn't be bothered to write a computer program to fairly
    dole out the money.
    
    My fear is that I really smell a class action lawsuit here. My
    prediction of what will happen is that DIGITAL will continue to refund
    the same amount to everyone it has said it will refund to. And then get
    stuck with the extra refund to all those who contributed who are no
    longer in the program.
    
    Dave

RE: .28   
    
    > My prediction of what will happen is that DIGITAL will continue to
    > refund the same amount to everyone it has said it will refund to. And
    > then get stuck with the extra refund to all those who contributed who
    > are no longer in the program.
    
    My guess is that Digital will rethink the situation, recalculate the
    $ amount, and give a rebate to everyone who is currently in the company
    and had the optional insurance at any time in the past.
    
    And the rebate will come out to about 50 cents per person.
    
    Marleen (who for once was on the good side of a cut-off point)

    since we're having fun guessing, I'll put in 2 cents.  I bet they
    already anticipated this, and they are prepared to pay off people that
    apply for an exception, thereby heading off lawsuits.  This probably
    beats the cost of writing any computer program. :-)
    
    Mark

    Given this was a Digital self-insured term life plan, and since we 
    didn't die off fast enough according the actuarial tables on which 
    the premiums were based, I'm surprised we're getting anything back.
    
    Insurance is a wager, and Digital won the bet. It was term insurance.
    Why does anybody think we should get anything back in the first place?

    
    they could deduct the missing premiums too from any awards to former
    participants.  At back intrest of course.

    Well,I think I got this figured out.(maybe not,huh? feel free to shoot
    doen my theory) Some people no longer PARTICIPANTS are NOT going to
    like this:
    For a long time,us PARTICIPANTS paid our premiums for optional life and
    these premiums went into a sort of "fund" from which claims were paid.
    (JH could also invest this money and keep some proceeds,after all,they
    *were* providing a service)
    The people who could make claims on this fund(remember only
    PARTICIPANTS get to make claims) were dying at a lower rate than the
    people who just had BASIC coverage. (various reasons) So,the fund built
    up a surplus. (claims lagged premiums)
    Bear in mind,people became non-PARTICIPANTS all this time for various
    reasons. (they quit,got TFSO etc.) The premiums they had paid still
    remained in the fund even though they were no longer PARTICIPANTS.(when
    was the last time you heard of anyone getting a refund of their
    life-ins. premiums just because they didn't die while covered?)
    Don't forget,the only ones who can make a claim on that "fund" are
    PARTICIPANTS. These people actually "own" that "fund".
    Now,Digital is switching insurance companies. That surplus which has
    been building up has to go somewhere. But where? The gummint won't let
    JH keep it. DEC can't keep it. The only place it can legally go is to
    those who legitimately can make a claim on that fund,the PARTICIPANTS.
    
    Am I at least close? Feel free to shoot this full of holes. It's only a
    guess (I guess)
    
    Ken

    Um, let me get this straight.  You cancelled your policy, opted out, 
    went some where else for a less expensive policy, outside of digital?
    
    Right?  Okay.  So, now that you are no longer part of this plan, why do
    you feel you should benefit from it?  I realize you contributed to it
    but it already paid you with insurance during your enrollment.  Now,
    we, those of us who are still enrolled, still paying those high $ for
    it, are getting a rebate.  How nice for us.  Lucky for us.  You want
    some of it?  No, you sold your stock here.  
    
    I suppose if there were a negative issue, if all of those still
    enrolled had to pay twice as much or some other unfortunate cost, you'd 
    write to people and complain that you were not allowed to pay as well. 
    Afterall, you underpaid for 16 years...you should... 
                                                        

re: .33

>     The people who could make claims on this fund(remember only
>     PARTICIPANTS get to make claims) were dying at a lower rate than the
>     people who just had BASIC coverage. (various reasons) So,the fund built
>     up a surplus. (claims lagged premiums)

      The fund built up a surplus because Digital priced the insurance
      premiums above the mortalitiy assumptions used.  I suspect the
      reasons were twofold:
		- if Digital erred, it had to error on the high
		  side.  It's okay to refund excess reserves to
		  participants but how would we feel if Digital
		  came back and asked for more?
		- the rates for older employees were artificially
		  kept low. At one time, it was reasonable to expect
		  the average Digital population to get older. Hence
		  the extra reserves would allow us (as we got older)
		  to get a lower rate.

>     Bear in mind,people became non-PARTICIPANTS all this time for various
>     reasons. (they quit,got TFSO etc.) The premiums they had paid still
>     remained in the fund even though they were no longer PARTICIPANTS.(when
>     was the last time you heard of anyone getting a refund of their
>     life-ins. premiums just because they didn't die while covered?)
	
      Happens all the time.  I get rebates/refunds on IEEE Life
      Insurance underwritten by NY Life.  Their rates still LOWER than the
      new CIGNA rates.

>     Now,Digital is switching insurance companies. That surplus which has
>     been building up has to go somewhere. But where? The gummint won't let
>     JH keep it. DEC can't keep it. The only place it can legally go is to
>     those who legitimately can make a claim on that fund,the PARTICIPANTS.

      Absolutely correct.  A quick look at the IRS forms showed that
      the insurance plan has built up a "cushion" of $40 million. 
      That money HAD to be returned to the participants.

    

    re: .35
    > happens all the time.
    
    The payments you are getting are dividend checks because you are STILL
    A
    PARTICIPANT and the company did better on investments than expexted.
    You cancel your policy and quit making payments those checks will quit
    coming to.
    

    
    RE: .34  Interesting point.

    
    
    		So , let me see now, since I participated in the 
    	program from 1980-1985 when I was TFSO'd (voluntarily),
    	and again from 1988-Present, I should be a Double-Dipper,
    	right ? Where's that co-ordinaters number again ??? (%^)
    
    				Pablo

	There are two aspects of this discussion that have me troubled.
   First, this refund is based on excess premiums paid over the life of
   this program, NOT some wildly successful investment program that has
   suddenly ballooned. Also this is not a "claim" as .33 has argued; again,
   it is a PREMIUM REFUND. If the refunds were based only on participation
   SINCE the August 17 cut-off, I could accept refunds only going to the
   current "participants".

	Second, the August 17,1993 cut-off date is interesting. This is the
  day that the SLT made the decision to forgo the current plan and adopt
  the new CIGNA plan. Perhaps someone can make a case as to why this is
  a reasonable date that should define the boundary between "PARTICIPANTS"
  and "non-PARTICIPANTS". To me, it's clearly arbitrary and capricious. Again,
  the important distinction needs to be applied: is this a REFUND of excess
  premiums, or a distribution of some other excess funds? I wish I could see
  enough information to be really clear on this...

	Also, from .34:

  >  you feel you should benefit from it?  I realize you contributed to it
  >  but it already paid you with insurance during your enrollment.  Now,

	I'd like to point out that the people receiving the refund also
  were paid with insurance during their enrollment.

  >  I suppose if there were a negative issue, if all of those still
  >  enrolled had to pay twice as much or some other unfortunate cost, you'd 
  >  write to people and complain that you were not allowed to pay as well. 
  >  Afterall, you underpaid for 16 years...you should... 

	This argument almost seems silly. IF, due to some catastrophic event,
  this situation occured, those still enrolled would simply bail out*. It is
  optional after all, and nobody would come looking for "former-PARTICIPANTS"
  to make up the shortfall. (By the way, is this disbursement being made due
  to some gov't regulation, or the goodness of Digital's/JH's heart?)
	
   * I do wonder though, since the present inflated premiums have gone
     un-noticed by so many!

-john_who_got_out_after_11_years_at_3_to_5X

re: .24, David

>				  I am formally requesting that Digital 
> re-consider its decision and include all current Digital employees who 
> participated in the program.

Why only "current Digital employees who participated in the program"? That
only discriminates against past Digital employees who participated, doesn't
it? If you want to see the "benefit" extended to those who no longer
participate but who once did, why cut out the folks who are no longer
here, many through no choice of their own?

> The result is that personal initiative is not being rewarded appropriately.

Is this a performance review, a salary action, a promotion, a job offer, or
an issue about refunding money from an insurance slush fund? What does
"rewarding personal initiative" have to do with it?

-Jack

    .39
    
    No, I do not agree with you.  Just cause you owned this policy, plan,
    option, at one time, does not entitle you to participate in a refund
    now.  If you plant the garden and sell it before harvest, you can not
    claim the prize for the winning tomatos!  No matter how much extra
    effort you invested.
    
    You left the plan.   You sold your key.  the door don't open to you
    now.

           <<< HUMANE::DISK$DIGITAL:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 2760.38   Cash - $$$ - from optional life coverage - READ ME       38 of 41
ELMAGO::PUSSERY                                       8 lines  10-NOV-1993 10:02
                             -< Mother may I...? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    		So , let me see now, since I participated in the 
    	program from 1980-1985 when I was TFSO'd (voluntarily),
    	and again from 1988-Present, I should be a Double-Dipper,
    	right ? Where's that co-ordinaters number again ??? (%^)
    
    				Pablo
    
    Excuse me? You got to _volunteer_ for TFSO, and then _return_ to the
    company???
              
    

   .41

  Curious analogy, those tomatoes. I would have preferred one dealing
  with turkey farms or something. :-) 
  
  I see this somewhat differently. Suppose I didn't SELL the garden, I just
  stopped tending it. Then the gardener next door harvests the tomatoes and
  claims the prize, justifying his claim by pointing out that I had stopped
  gardening.

  When I stopped participating in the plan, I was not offered a refund on
  the premiums I had paid. I didn't SELL anything; I stopped contributing
  to the existing surplus. That money is now being "refunded" to those who
  are being forced to leave the plan, due to its termination. The plan had
  been in effect for over 34 years without a refund and in spite of what
  .12 says I don't think many saw this coming. How about a show of hands?
  How many of you stayed in the plan because you expected a refund? A
  reduction in premiums? Come on now, be honest!  

.41> You left the plan.
     Yup. As a healthy person I found Digital's/JH's rates uncompetitive.

.41> You sold your key.
     Did I? I guess the check must be in the mail?

.41 > the door don't open to you now.
      That may be true, but if can just give this knob a little turn...

  As an aside, I can't expect both sides of this issue to agree, it seems
  too easy to get emotional. There's been much emotional discussion in
  this file about turkeys, Canobie Lake, COE, DCU fees, etc. This issue is
  about some pretty serious money (by my standards, anyway); I estimate that
  I would/could/should? have gotten ~$2500 from this "refund".

-john_who's_been_harvesting_overgrown_tomatoes_for_years

    
    re.42 
    
    		There was a voluntary TFSO in Manufacturing in 1985;
    	should've been there , it wasn't glorious in ABO(Albuq.,N.M.).
     	Most folks in this conference are aware of it...............
    	Send me mail off line or do a dir/key=TFSO,LAYOFFS,or Layoff
    	and watch for dates in 1985. Excuse me to the rest of the
    	participants in this string. Now back to the irregularly 
    	scheduled agenda.
    
    			Pablo
    

FWIW, I belong to a rural electric co-op. Periodically, there are more
$$$$ available than what was needed to buy power, maintain lines, etc.
You cannot get these $$$ immediately, but after being in the co-op a
number of years you can receive them.

Today, the electric co-op searches for former members to pay them
the cash that was surplus from operations 10, 15 or 20 years ago.

The electric co-op seems to feel if the member contributed, then the cash
belongs to the customer.

Lee

Would those of suggesting you should receive a refund after leaving the plan 
be expecting any similar reimbursment if the plan you opted out of were not
Digital's?  For example, if you'd had your life insurance with Prudential for
15+ years and then opted out, would you expect a similar excess premium refund
assuming the same circumstances (positive experience in their life insurance
policy, excess premium built up)?

-Andy

    re: .43
    
    >The plan had been in effect for over 34 years without a refund and in
    >spite of what .12 says I don't think many saw this coming. How about a
    >show of hands? How many of you stayed in the plan because you expected
    >a refund? A reduction in premiums? Come on now, be honest!  
    
    For the record, I expected some refund of premium. For that reason, I
    kept 1X my salary. As soon as the termination of
    the John Hancock plan was announced, I waited 30 days and then
    cancelled my optional insurance.
    
    Note:  It's VERY important the everyone reads the notices that comes
    from the US Benefits Group.  These disclosures are mandidated by law
    and sometimes include VERY important information! I quote from the
    last one:

YOUR SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORTS
For U.S. Employees of Digital Equipment Corporation          May 1993
         
Summary Annual Reports for Digital Equipment Corporation
     The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), passed by 
Congress in 1974, protects individuals covered under any company-
sponsored benefit plan. One of the rights guaranteed by ERISA is that 
you are entitled to information about your benefit plans' annual 
financial status. In other words, you have a right to review a summary 
of each plan's yearly expenses and income. 

re: .46, Andy

Is the Prudential analogy a valid one? In their case, I wouldn't expect
a refund even if I'd stayed with the plan. Insurance companies are in
business to hang on to your premiums at all costs unless they absolutely
have to pay a claim (or it's whole life). There's never any cash value
or expected payback on term insurance with a normal carrier.

re: .47

How on earth did you extrapolate from that vague boilerplate disclaimer
which you quoted from the Summary Annual Reports, that a premium refund
would be forthcoming and that you should opt out 30 days after announcement
of the termination of the JH plan? I couldn't read that between those
lines if I tried.

-Jack

>Is the Prudential analogy a valid one? In their case, I wouldn't expect
>a refund even if I'd stayed with the plan. Insurance companies are in
>business to hang on to your premiums at all costs unless they absolutely
>have to pay a claim (or it's whole life). There's never any cash value
>or expected payback on term insurance with a normal carrier.

Then under what circumstances is John Hancock under that they must refund
this money?

-Andy

    Re .49
    
    	Since DIGITAL is self insuring, and JH did the record keeping, I
    believe it is DIGITAL refunding the money, not John Hancock.
    
    Re Prudential reality,
    
    	Prudential and John Hancock are NOT Mutual Insurance Companies,
    they are stockholder owned company (I believe).  Therefore, any gains
    go to the shareholders.
    
    With a Mutual Insurance Company (I tend to deal with these because of
    better rates, etc), the "Owners" are the policy holders, and the
    returns come in reduced rates, or even (depending on the Policy)
    dividends to the Policyholder.
    

    
    Re: .50
    
    Yes it is Digital sending the money back but being self-insured
    does not mean that you just pay benefits out of cash on hand.
    Self-insurance is an option but is still insurance i.e there
    must be a policy contract and it is governed by law.   Digital
    has no more options than JH would have had if it had been a JH
    policy.
    
    Steve
    

    FWIW, I too have been bitten by this insur. refund.  8+ years of 3X to
    5X salary contributions but no refund since I bought term insurance
    outside digital at Q $1/year per $1,000 in coverage vs. $1.82 (pre-35)
    and $2.60 ish (post-35).  I stopped contributions about 2 years ago
    because the rates were so uncompetitive and I couldn't get as much
    coverage as I needed.  I also wanted to to take one small digital hook
    out of my skin in case I needed to find outher employement (ie: TFSO). 
    I have received refunds from mortgage companies and insurance companies in
    the past well after paying off balances or otherwise being a
    "participant".  
    
    I think they key to this situation is in defining the refund as X% of
    one's contributions.  If the idea is that people should benefit in
    proportion to their premiums paid over the years, then that should
    include all who did so, whether present participants, employees, or
    not.  Even if those records are not available within digital, the
    opportunity to prove your claim otherwise should be available.  I know
    I've got all my year-end digital pay-stubs and would be more than
    willing to provide JH & digital with the necessary info!
    
    If, however, the payments are not primarily refunds of premiums, but
    excess retained funds accrued from investments, etc. you could make a
    much stronger case that they should go to current participants only.  
    
    However, it appears, based on the info, that the excess premiums
    coupled with lower than expected claims were the primary reasons for
    the reserve build up.  All current or past participants therefore
    contributed to that pot and should share in it proportionally.  My
    guess is that digital chose (as it seems to so often lately) the most
    expedient way to refund the dollars that apparently must be refunded by
    the insurance contract or by law. 

re .50

John Hancock *is* a mutual insurance company.

    Instead of a rebate, if the life insurance rates had gone UP because of
    MORE deaths than expected, I somehow kinda doubt that those who left
    the plan would be demanding the right to pay more now to make up for
    when their contributions were too low.
    
    Rationalize all you want.  You have no claim.
    
      John

 .54

  >  Instead of a rebate, if the life insurance rates had gone UP because of
  >  MORE deaths than expected, I somehow kinda doubt that those who left
  >  the plan would be demanding the right to pay more now to make up for
  >  when their contributions were too low.
      
	This point has been made before. Let me see if I understand this.
  Under this situation YOU would remain in the plan and pay the higher rates?
  I somehow kinda doubt it.

   >  Rationalize all you want.  You have no claim.

	Maybe not, but I think that remains to be decided. I understand
   that this may feel like my hand is in your pocket, but it feels like
   someone's hand is also in mine.

	 Percentage wise, I think you have little to fear from the probably
   small number of employees that have voluntarily left the plan over the
   years. But I fear the worst when all those who were forced to leave get
   wind of this... 

-john.

    Re .53
    
    I  admit I was guessing about JH.  Sorry for the faux paux.
    

    I believe that Digital is self-insuring for HEALTH INSURANCE (DMP1/2) 
    only.  That 'benefit' ;( is administered by JH.  The life insurance is
    actually a John Hancock policy.  I guess a better way of descibing the
    situation is that we all contributed to the fund over the years and
    that now that the policy is being terminated the 'profits' are being
    disbursed to the current owners i.e. the participant at a specific
    point in time.  For those whe left the group policy, hey, you took the
    best choice for you at the time, why are you complaining?  I would not
    view this as much as a refund of premiums as a liquidation of assets to
    current 'owners' based on previous contributions.
    
    Im not a lawyer, but since this was a term life insurance policy (vs a
    whole life plan), no refunds were expected or promised.  In other
    words, no contractual obligation was ever established to return the
    premiums at a future point in time.  The situation may be analogous to
    a company that liquidate will distribute all remaining assets (after
    creditors) to the current stock holders of the company NOT PREVIOUS
    OWNERS.
    
    
    						Rich

    .43
    
    You didn't stop tending the garden, you sold it.  Your payment for the
    garden and the "key" is/was your reduced cost for insurance outside of
    Digital.
    
    "As CEO of the Fridley Manufacturing Company, I'd like to announce a
    stock bonus to all those of you who started with us 10 years ago and
    continued to invest with us through August of this year.  We turned a
    mighty profit and I want to reward those investers with 100 shares of
    stock for every share you have!  Your investment made this happen!"
    
    
    	"Hey, I just sold my stock after 9.2 years of holding it, didn't
    	MY investment make it happen too?  SHouldn't I get something too?"

    
    
    .57 and others
    
    I would not have an issue with this if I thought it was a "dividend"
    paid, or something similar to a return on investment.
    
    The reason I believe it should be contested is that it is an "excess
    premium" that "built up over several years".  This tells me that we
    have been paying out more premium than we should have.  That excess
    premium was not paid out just by the people that were in the plan
    as of August 17, 1993.
    
    Consider that these excess premiums built up over several years.  Why 
    didn't the price of the insurance decrease due to the build up ?  Why 
    didn't we receive premium refunds each year because of the "overcharging" 
    of premiums to cover the plan ?
    
    Dave

	I think drawing an analogy to holding stock just doesn't wash.
    People who have stayed in the plan own nothing, they hold nothing
    of value. Try listing it as an asset on a loan application. It's term
    insurance. They simply allow JH to dip into their paychecks to collect
    this week's (or is it last week's) premium. Holding stock when a
    corporation liquidates or pays dividends is something else altogether.

    .57
  >  Im not a lawyer, but since this was a term life insurance policy (vs a
  >  whole life plan), no refunds were expected or promised.  In other
  >  words, no contractual obligation was ever established to return the
  >  premiums at a future point in time.  The situation may be analogous to

	I buy "term insurance" from Metpay every year for my home and my
    cars. I may be able to get it elsewhere for lower premiums, but I know
    that every year Metpay returns part of the premiums if the claims they
    pay to the Digital community were less than anticipated. (sound familiar?)
    If I were to terminate my policies, I would still expect to receive my
    refund on the previous year's premiums. I am AWARE that refunds are paid,
    and CHOOSE to take my chances with them because I know this. Digital/JH
    have never, to my knowledge, refunded any of theses premiums even though
    they have been collecting an excess of %150 all along. When I realized
    this I got out. The difference is that JH is making a one-time rather
    than annual refund; I presume because they have to, due to the plan's
    termination. I wish I knew...

	I think it will be easy to go round and round with this; I can
    imagine that if I WERE receiving a refund I could just as easily argue
    the other side. Independent arbitration is needed (which may rule out
    US_Benefis). So is more accurate info. I have received nothing in the
    mail, even though I received the same CIGNA mailing as the "refundees".
    My checklist sheet was missing one paragraph, however. All I know is
    what's in this file and word of mouth from my peers; plus a little tidbit
    from the US_Benefits Manager; that the refund is computed by taking 59.6%
    of the sum of the payments one has made over the life of the program. It's
    not pro-rated on a year-by-year basis.

	 Can anyone answer any of these questions?
     	  1. Why is August 17,1993 the cut-off date? Why not Dec 31, 1993?
	  2. Is the sum of this refund based solely on excess premiums or
	     does it include any funds from investments?
	  3. Why wasn't some of this money refunded before now? Why were
             the premiums maintained at 2.5X more than needed once a
             considerable surplus was achieved?
          4. Why is this money being refunded? Is it by law? Good will?

sigh,
-john.

    the excess premium built up.  fine.  very good.
    
    But, if we did not cancel at this point and a wave of Digits bit the
    dust, then there would be no build up for the surviving Digits in the
    plan.
    
    You seem to imply that something is morally wrong with having a build
    up. Problably sound insurance business practice.  
    
    The fact is :  you do not own a policy so you don't get the refund.
    
    I think it makes sense.

    Another analogy. Suppose you had cable TV. You had it for 12 years, and
    paid the bill on time. You cancel the cable TV subscription. Two years
    later "someone" determines that;
    	
    		a. initial billing was too high
    			   or
    		b. a surplus exists in the account and "someone 
    		   says return the surplus."
    
    Are you entitled to any refunds? I agree that more information needs to
    be disclosed. Ideas?
    
    cheers,
    		fred deady

    ref. several 
    
    If you quit them - you stop paying premiums and walk away with nothing.
    If they quit you - they give back what they didn't use. 

The easiest way to test whether you are entitled to a refund: calculate your
refund and demand it in writing from DEC, following the procedures outlined
in "the plan". It will take a few :-) phone calls to get a copy of "the plan."
If DEC doesn't pay up, file suit against DEC in small claims court. (If you have
more at stake, you might want a lawyer!)

Find out from John Hancock why they returned money to DEC (contractual
requirement, state legal requirement, etc.) It will take a few :-) phone calls
to figure this out. Find out from your state insurance commisioner what state
laws apply to this situation. This will take a few :-) more phone calls.

Likely outcome (IMNSHO): you will get a judgement, and DEC will pay up,
after a few :-) additional phone calls.

--RS

If a customer support center had been demolished by an earthquake, more than
wiping out the insurance fund, would past participants have helped make up
the premium deficit?  There was not an excess when you quit the plan, only
when it was stopped.

Lew

.65 
> If a customer support center had been demolished by an earthquake, more than
> wiping out the insurance fund, would past participants have helped make up
> the premium deficit?  There was not an excess when you quit the plan, only
> when it was stopped.

	I keep hearing this argument over and over again, but I still don't
  understand its relevance. IF this scenario were to occur, the PRESENT
  participants would not be asked to make up the deficit, so why do you expect
  the past participants to do so. This is NOT what's happening! A %60 REFUND is
  being distributed to SOME of the people who contributed to this excess while
  NONE is being distributed to others with the boundary being some ARBITRARY
  date.

.65
>      		 -< When does it become excess premiums? >-

	I suspect that when a decision is made to distribute it, it is excess. 	

-john.

    

    I guess LIFE ISN'T FAIR.

    I can't believe some people are complaining.  That money isn't yours or
    mine, but the executors of the Life insurance fund.  The participants
    were never promised a cent back.  It is the ones in charge of the fund
    granting that money to whom ever they wish.  If you get some, feel very
    lucky.  If you don't get any of the money, you have no RIGHT to
    complain.  It wasn't yours to begin with.

    Jim Morton

RE: .48 

> How on earth did you extrapolate from that vague boilerplate disclaimer
> which you quoted from the Summary Annual Reports, that a premium refund
> would be forthcoming and that you should opt out 30 days after announcement
> of the termination of the JH plan? I couldn't read that between those
> lines if I tried.

That was not boilerplate but an important piece of information. Like
financial statements, key facts are often not highlighted for you.

My thought processes:

Step 1:   The insurance premiums seem to be exceeding the  
          insurance payout.  Where does the money go?
	  How much has been accumlated?

	  From the same Summary Annual Report:
        
          "Your Rights to Additional Information:
           You have the right to receive a copy of the full
           annual reports, or any part thereof, for any or
           all of the Plans in which you participate, on
           request.
                                     Cost for the
           Plan                   full annual report
	   
           Group Insurance              $2.00"
          
Step 2:   Ordered the full annual report. Paid my $2.00. (It 
          was well worth it.)

Step 3:   Humm... A large amount has been accumulated.
          In fact the line from the full report is
	  called "dividend or retroactive rate refund due"

Step 4:   Review the laws regarding benefits surplus.
	  Fortunately the money belongs to the
	  plan/participants and NOT Digital.

Conclusion:  Stick with the plan until the refunds are
	     announced. By the way, return of dividends
             could have been in other forms such as lower
	     rates, matching universal insurance, etc. 

The 30 days was a guess on my part.  I wanted to stop
paying the high rates as quickly as possible.

Gim

      re.68

	 Thanks, finally some real unseful info. No lame analogies;
  no "tough luck, I got mine! stop complaining!" You deserve to be rewarded
  for your awareness and foresight, not to mention initiative.

  However, I still feel the need to press on...

>Step 3:   Humm... A large amount has been accumulated.
>          In fact the line from the full report is
> 	   called "dividend or retroactive rate refund due"
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^
                                    |
Hmmm, here's an interesting word ---+

>Step 4:   Review the laws regarding benefits surplus.
>	   Fortunately the money belongs to the
>	   plan/participants and NOT Digital.

Could you point us to the applicable laws? Or elaberate just a little? This
may be the first compelling argument that the money belong to the PRESENT
participants.


>                                     Cost for the
>           Plan                   full annual report
>	   
>           Group Insurance              $2.00"
>          
>Step 2:   Ordered the full annual report. Paid my $2.00. (It 
>          was well worth it.)

Hmmm... there's only one report for the entire group insurance plan. Does that
mean that there is only one plan? There are two components of company-offered
life insurance; company paid, and optional. I wouldn't be so brash as to lay
claim to any of the company-paid refund, but I still get company-paid (basic)
life insurance. IF there is indeed only one plan, then am I not still a
"participant"?

I await your flames...

-john. 

    I was in the plan for over 5 years and 3 x my salary and canceled the
    first week in August of this year to go with an outside company (to
    save a few $$ and protect myself in case of being laid off).  This doesn't
    feel good.  
    
    Bing

    
    I have an interesting twist on this issue that I'd appreciate some
    insight into...
    
    I was on Short Term Disability (childbirth) until late July, and the
    became an active employee until August 13, 1993 using all of my
    vacation time before starting a parental leave.
    
    My parental leave of absense began August 16 and continued until 
    October 18 when I returned full time.  I pre-paid benefits (including
    optional life) during my leave of absense.
    
    I was not a regular employee on August 17th.  
    
    Am I eligible to receive my refund for participating for 6 years, or
    is this timing a cruel twist of fate?
    
    I will be calling Cigna in 2 days (after they process my PIN number)
    to check up on this, but I wanted some insight first.
    
    - Maureen
                                                         

    
    RE: .71  What did your package say?

    
    What package?  I received the standard STD package, came back full
    time, and then took a LOA.  The LOA paperwork indicates the benefits
    that can be continued during the leave (by pre-paying of course), but
    I was not a "regular active" employee on August 17th, even though the
    benefits continued...

    RE: .73 The package from Cigna. That's where most of us found out
    that we were getting money back. It says right on the worksheet
    how much money one is getting.

    		Alfred

    
    Oh that package....
    
    No, I did not receive that package.
    
    The package was only sent to employees who we "active" as of August 15.
    
    I got the Cigna worksheet faxed to me, but it was not personalized
    or customized for me.  That's why I have to wait for 2 days until
    I fax it back to them with a PIN number of my choosing and they
    process that PIN number.
    
    -Maureen

    
    
    Oh, I see.  I'd call them back and inquire about the number.

    Re .55
    "But I fear worst when all those who were forced to leave get wind
    of this..."
    
    As one of the 30,000 or so Tfso'd and 17 years in the plan at 5X I
    assure you we do have wind of this......

    
    
    
    	I just talked to CIGNA, and they told me that if you do nothing
    	(don't send in the form or re-enroll) they will keep your
    	status the same, and mail the check to you

     Re .78
       
       I talked to them too...and if you re-enroll or not, unless you ELECT
    to have the money from the Hancock plan rolled into a "Cash 
    Accumulation Fund" account, the check will be sent to you in January. 
    If you do not re-enroll AND open a "Cash Accumulation Fund" account,
    there is nowhere else that they CAN send the money except to the
    individuals. 
    
       The way I understand this money is that this is sort of like a
    "hedge" fund that insurance companies commonly have, to prevent your
    premium from chaning every week. It's based on some actuatrial tables,
    and it is only allowed to legally reach a certain maximum. If it does
    reachthat maximum, the money must be refunded until it gets the fund
    down to a specific level. Sort of like the old "Min-Max" inventory
    concept in some respects. If, however, the fund gets BELOW a specified
    level, then the premiums are usually raised to a level to support
    reality.
    
      
       While I do sympathize in principle with those who chose to get out
    of the fund before August 17, I think it should be put into
    perspective. 
    
       **There never was and never will be any sort of up-front 'guarantee'
    that money will be refunded from a fund such as this.
    
       **Everyone who PURCHASED insurance over the past years RECEIVED what
    they had PAID for----I.E.: Insurance in accordance with the premiums
    paid.
    
       **By paying the premium, you were--in effect--a member of the
    "club". (I.E.: The Insurance GROUP.)
    
       **By STOPPING the premium payment, you elected to get OUT of the
    club. When you got OUT of the club voluntarily, your eligibility for
    the annual club PICNIC went away...as did your insurance that you were
    paying for previously.
    
       It would be the same as some Digital Employee with 24 years service
    who decided to go to IBM or Compaq, and 2 weeks after the person left
    the BOD of DIgital decided that all employees would be given a new
    PC.... Sorry guy!! Your 23 years were appreciated, but you don't get
    the Alpha PC!!
    
    
      Life's a beach...and you do get some sand in your shoes now and
    then..
    
      John Mc

       To those of you who have been following this note with interest
        regarding the issue of extending the rebate to those who opted out
    	of the Optional Life plan prior to August 17th, I want to encourage
    	you to write a memo to Digital's Employee Benefits manager
    	expressing your desire to participate in the refund of excess
    	premiums (see note 2760.2).
    
    	A number of individuals have contacted me off-line, indicating that
    	they have sent memos to that effect.  Due to the fact that most
    	entries  in this string have not been supportive of the idea, not
    	everyone who has sent a memo has indicated that in this note.
    
    	I've continued to read the comments to determine if I am off base
    	requesting to participate in the rebate, but have not read anything
    	conclusive that would violate fairness or legalities for me to be
    	a part of the rebate program.  I suspect that an unspoken awareness
    	that the rebate is larger if fewer participate, drives much of the
    	sentiment against my position.  The option life benefit was not a
    	mutual fund (i.e.  owned by the participants).  Digital was
   	obligated to pay the benefits not the participants.  Digital can
    	chose to rebate to anyone it wants to.  I suspect that the benefits
    	organization doesn't want the additional administrative work.
    
    	Stay tuned; I've been promised a reply in 1-2 weeks.
    
    

>        regarding the issue of extending the rebate to those who opted out
>    	of the Optional Life plan prior to August 17th, I want to encourage
>    	you to write a memo to Digital's Employee Benefits manager

below is the memo i sent to paul cornelius regarding the refund of premium.
is he the person to address?  i sent this before reading any notes on the
subject.  i too would recommend that people send memos.  digital has shown us 
on several occasions, (ie. vacation accrual, education funding), they can and 
do make irrational decisions and then reverse them.  -craig

From:	TFH::DONNELLY "Quality, Service, Cost- Pick any two  17-Nov-1993 1018" 17-NOV-1993 10:23:04.20
To:	ICS::CORNELIUS
CC:	MPGS::ROMANOWICZ,DONNELLY
Subj:	LIFE INSURANCE REFUND OF PREMIUM

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |            
| d | i | g | i | t | a | l |         M E M O R A N D U M
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |         
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                      DATE: 17-Nov-1993 
TO: Paul Cornelius                    FROM: CRAIG DONNELLY
                                      DEPT: HEADS PROD. ENGR.
CC: Marlene Romanowicz                 EXT: 327-3261
                                        MS: SHR1 3/C12
                                      ENET: TFH::DONNELLY

SUBJ: Life Insurance Refund of Premium

Mr. Cornelius,

I am writing in regard to the "refund of premium" connected with the current 
CIGNA open enrollment period.  In trying to determine the amount of this 
refund it appears that in my case there is none.  The details and exact 
reasons are not fully verified at this point and that is one reason I am 
writing.  

Based on what I have been told it appears that since I canceled my 4x salary
optional life insurance with the Digital/John Hancock program I am
ineligible.  I canceled my optional insurance last year and the arbitrary
date of eligibility is Aug-1993.  This seems unfair since I did participate
in this program for 9 plus years and finally changed my insurance to METPAY
for the very reason refunds are being paid, high premiums relative to risk.
If Digital as a group maintained a better than average claim rate with John 
Hancock I have to insist that I was part of that group since I paid premiums
over the years, worked for Digital, and am still alive. 

Please reply to my correspondence and give me a correct version of exactly 
what the refund is, how its amount is calculated, and what are the terms of 
eligibility.  And please tell me that those of us who faithfully participated
in the Digital benefits program for optional life insurance for so many
years will not be penalized. 

Thank you for your time and effort,
Craig Donnelly

    .80
    
    You make all the assumptions you like.  You rationalize all you want.
    And, please, share your opinions freely, here and with the appropriate
    powers that be.
    
    But, you are still WRONG.
    
    No matter how hard you try, you'll always be to blame.  YOU exited the
    plan.  You aint in this club no more. 
    
    So, I guess I'll take a few minutes and jot down my opposition to your
    receiving any of the refund and send it off the same folks as you.  The
    message you posted moves me.  
    
    Pfffft!

What about an employee that left Digital in October and was in 'the plan'
until that date?

Lee

    .82
  >  You make all the assumptions you like.  You rationalize all you want.
  >  And, please, share your opinions freely, here and with the appropriate
  >  powers that be.
    
     Thank you for your tolerance...

  >  But, you are still WRONG.
    
     Why? And who appointed you judge...

  >  No matter how hard you try, you'll always be to blame.  YOU exited the
  >  plan.  You aint in this club no more. 

     IS THIS WHY?!
     Sigh...this is not a club. This is a refund of excess premiums. The
     excess is being distributed to only SOME of the contributors. I have
     yet to see a compelling argument of why that should be, only lame
     analogies to stocks, clubs, and tomatoes. Can you answer these two
     questions: (without an analogy, please)

	1. What is the difference between this refund and the refunds that
	   Metpay gives every year, even if you don't renew your policy?

        2. Why am I not still in your "club" if I still have basic company
           provided life insurance? Don't all the premiums and all the claims
           go in and out of one pot?
     
  >  So, I guess I'll take a few minutes and jot down my opposition to your
  >  receiving any of the refund and send it off the same folks as you.  The
  >  message you posted moves me.  

     The avenue of appeal is the same as that used if you are denied a claim.
     Which claim, pray tell, have you been denied? If you're looking to
     maximize your refund, why not make a case for changing the cut-off date to
     Dec 31, 1993? If your arguing fairness then "..., please, share your
     opinions freely, here..." Please, though, spare us the analogies.
    
  >  Pfffft!

     Up until now, I had hoped that efforts to change this decision would not
     reduce the refunds already announced. But frankly I'm tired of the "tough
     luck, I've got mine" attitude and hope this sum of money is redistributed
     to everybody who's ever contributed, particularly those who were forced
     to leave.  (Except, of course, those who have already made claims.) :-) 
     IMHO that is the only FAIR resolution to this mess.


-john.

    .84

>        2. Why am I not still in your "club" if I still have basic company
>           provided life insurance? Don't all the premiums and all the claims
>           go in and out of one pot?

    Because you're not paying the premiums for the basic company provided
    life insurance!  Digital is!

-Andy

    So, cutting through all this diatribe of "I should get some because I
    contributed" and the other camp's saying "Tough luck, buddy!" - is
    there anything happening legally for the company to consider paying
    other contributors who opted out.
    
    I mean griping is one thing, but action is another.

    .84
    
>     Thank you for your tolerance...

You are welcome!  It *is* an effort! :)  

>     Why? And who appointed you judge...

Me, Me did :).  (You're right, I forgot the IMO)
 
>     IS THIS WHY?!
>     Sigh...this is not a club. This is a refund of excess premiums. The
>     excess is being distributed to only SOME of the contributors. I have
>     yet to see a compelling argument of why that should be, only lame
>     analogies to stocks, clubs, and tomatoes. Can you answer these two
>     questions: (without an analogy, please)

>	1. What is the difference between this refund and the refunds that
>	   Metpay gives every year, even if you don't renew your policy?

This is not Metpath.

>        2. Why am I not still in your "club" if I still have basic company
>           provided life insurance? Don't all the premiums and all the claims
>           go in and out of one pot?
     
I pay for this club membership, not Digital.  You do not pay, so (IMO) you have
no rights to the terms and conditions of this insurance policy, nor the refund.

>     The avenue of appeal is the same as that used if you are denied a claim.
>     Which claim, pray tell, have you been denied? If you're looking to
>     maximize your refund, why not make a case for changing the cut-off date to
>     Dec 31, 1993? If your arguing fairness then "..., please, share your
>     opinions freely, here..." Please, though, spare us the analogies.
 
My opinion is that you are trying to bully *Digital* into giving you a refund
you do not have rights to.  You are advocating written appeals to Digital to 
get it.  I am advocating written appeals to *Digital* that prevent you getting
it.  BTW, you were not denied a claim, you don't have this insurance, so you 
can not claim coverage.
   
>     Up until now, I had hoped that efforts to change this decision would not
>     reduce the refunds already announced. But frankly I'm tired of the "tough
>     luck, I've got mine" attitude and hope this sum of money is redistributed
>     to everybody who's ever contributed, particularly those who were forced
>     to leave.  (Except, of course, those who have already made claims.) :-) 
>     IMHO that is the only FAIR resolution to this mess.

"I've got mine" is not my attitude.  Nor, am I going to label the views of those
people against your position with "I've got mine".  Just because *YOU* say this
is so, does not make it so.   

I do think your position is wrong.  I will write to the same people you do and 
support the decision as is.  Too many people think Digital is willing to 
crumble under the threat of "legal" action.  I want to be sure that Digital 
understands both sides of the argument.  Why not?  Like I said, you've moved
me :)


-Parvenu the Horrible Pirate!

    .85
 >   Because you're not paying the premiums for the basic company provided
 >   life insurance!  Digital is!

        Let me try this again. Everyone gets basic life. Digital pays the 
     premiums. If you want more, you pay the premiums. All the money
     goes into one pot. If someone makes a claim, their beneficiary is
     paid out of the pot. Digital contributes on behalf of ALL current
     ft-employees; some employees pay on their own to have additional
     optional coverage. I am arguing that I AM still in the plan regardless
     of who's paying for it; after all, if I die, my beneficiary can make
     a $50K claim. I am NOT saying that I should be refunded the
     premiums that Digital has paid, just the premiums I paid; just like
     those who ARE getting a refund.

	Now for the mysterious part. We've seen from the quotes from the
     annual reports that there was some $40+ million dollars to be refunded.
     We don't know how that money is being distributed. Is ALL of it being
     refunded to "current plan members"? Is Digital keeping "their" portion
     of the refund? Do the refunds contain premiums that Digital has paid on
     behalf of employees who never bought optional life? Is Digital holding
     any of this money back "just in case"?


-john_who's_still_looking_for_answers

    
    Re: .88
    
    > I am arguing that I AM still in the plan regardless of who's
    > paying for it; 
    
    What you are assuming is that it is all *one* contract.  It may
    be that the optional plan is a totally separate contract having
    nothing to do with the Digital provided insurance.
    
    Steve
    

mr ricciardi,

let me try (too):

let's say for the sake of discussion that there are two employees involved in 
the life insurance benefits at dec, you and me.  

you started working here 10 years ago (come january) and decided to pay for
4x your salary for extra life insurance.  on aug 16th you decided that you
could obtain the same coverage elswhere for less, so you did. 

i started working here last aug 16th and selected the same coverage, 4x my 
salary and started paying the same high premiums you were paying until you 
stopped.

tomorrow digital will negotiate a settlement with john hancock since the 
premiums paid over the last ten were high with respect to the claims payed 
out.  let's say the amount payed in was a couple hundred bucks a year ($2000) 
and the claims paid was zero, you and i are still alive.  let's say the
amount of refund is 10% or $200.  

john hancock is still happy, they keep $1800 profit. 
digital is happy, they have won back a refund for their employees.  
i am happy, i get the $200 (your $190 + my $10).  
you are happy (?), you get nothing.  because you are big enough to realize
that even though you paid in $1900 and $190 in excess high premiums that you
do not deserve it.

if this logic makes sense to you please acknowledge it by sending me not 
$200, but because this is a special offer available today only, send $190.
you save $10.  this offer is not available on television.
-craig

    
    Re: .90
    
    > john hancock is still happy, they keep $1800 profit. 
    > digital is happy, they have won back a refund for their employees.  
    > i am happy, i get the $200 (your $190 + my $10).  
    > you are happy (?), you get nothing.  because you are big enough to realize
    > that even though you paid in $1900 and $190 in excess high premiums that you
    > do not deserve it.
    
    You are arguing two different things.  If your view is that you aren't
    happy about this, I would suspect no one blames you nor would they
    admit to feeling any differently.  Life is not fair and sometimes stuff
    happens that makes us unhappy.  C'est la vie.
    
    The other side is simply that you may have no legal recourse fair or
    not.  Arguing that you aren't happy about this vs. the argument that
    you may have no legal claim amounts to chasing your tail.  If you
    want to complain write a letter to Digital where it may do some good
    and good luck, really.  Otherwise chalk it up to one of life's
    unfair twists and get on with it.
    
    Steve
    

    I stopped buying lotto tickets a few years ago because I 
    always played the same number. Sometimes I forgot to buy
    a ticket - I would always get stressed out imagining that
    "my number" gets drawn and I just quit buying tickets that week.
    Should I claim something be paid to me 'cause I *used* to 
    buy that number ticket for years, but it only paid off after
    I quit? 
    
    Would it be better if the overage was not returned at all?
    
     

    .90
    
    Sir,
    
    I appreciate your logic.  You are logical.  
    
    But what does it have to do with eligibility?
    
    mr ricciardi

    I'm really very sympathetic to the people who are not receiving a
    refund.  There's certainly no reason why you shouldn't make every
    attempt to change the situation.  However, I don't think the situation 
    is all that unique.  And, right or wrong, arbitrary dates are chosen 
    and used all the time.
    
    For example, stock dividends, stock splits, proxy votes, etc. are all
    given to stockholders as of a certain "arbitrary" date.  You do not
    participate if you sell the stock the day before that date even though
    you may have held the stock for years before you sold it.
    
    Another example would be the SERP package and the "arbitrary" ages and
    dates chosen for that.  Even insurance itself uses "arbitrary" dates. 
    Why, for example, does my insurance go up on my 40th birthday?
    
    Again, I'm sympathetic.  But as the old saying goes, the chicken has to
    cross the road sometime.  Unfortunately, some people decided to cancel
    their life insurance at the wrong time.
    
    Good luck in getting the rules changed, but I don't think I would hold
    my breath.
    
    Chet      

RE: .82   
    
 	>  So, I guess I'll take a few minutes and jot down my opposition 
    	>  to your receiving any of the refund and send it off the same 
    	>  folks as you.  
    
    Not a bad idea. There are many of us who believe that the current
    arrangement is fair. We should communicate that to the people who
    made the decision, just so that they don't get the idea that everyone
    feels that the current arrangement should be changed.
    
    MG

    	I overheard a conversation today that was a bit confusing to me.
    A personel rep advised an employee that if a refund was issued....
    
    	"DON'T CASH IT!!!...IT MIGHT BE A MISTAKE"
    
    EXCUSE ME!!! If the check says PAY TO THE ORDER OF (insert name) it's
    		yours....isn't it????
    
    Rick
    

  Re: .89

 >   What you are assuming is that it is all *one* contract.  It may
 >   be that the optional plan is a totally separate contract having
 >   nothing to do with the Digital provided insurance.

  from .12
  "Group Insurance Plan
       This is a summary of the annual report of the Basic, Optional and 
  Dependent Life Insurance and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Plan 
  04-2226590:501 for the period July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. The 
  annual report has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service, as 
  required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
  (ERISA)."

  Sounds like one plan to me...

-john

    
    Re: .97
    
    > "Group Insurance Plan
    >   This is a summary of the annual report of the Basic, Optional and 
    > Dependent Life Insurance and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Plan 
    > 04-2226590:501 for the period July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. The 
    > annual report has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service, as 
    > required under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
    > (ERISA)."
    >
    > Sounds like one plan to me...

    I didn't say one plan.  I said ONE CONTRACT.  It is entirely
    possible that the plan has is comprised of several contracts.
    
    Steve
    

    RE: .81
    
    Sour Grapes
    
    Marc H.

    The legal departments of Digital and Cigna probably researched this
    question months ago in anticipation of just such a "problem". It may be
    safe to say that if anything had come up to put the "refund" in
    question,those legal types wouldn't have given the "go-ahead" for
    putting the amount on the forms. Does this make any sense?
    
    Ken

>    The legal departments of Digital and Cigna probably researched this
>    question months ago in anticipation of just such a "problem". It may be
>    safe to say that if anything had come up to put the "refund" in
>    question,those legal types wouldn't have given the "go-ahead" for
>    putting the amount on the forms. Does this make any sense?

No, considering things like the bi-weekly payroll problem awhile back...

RE .101

>>    The legal departments of Digital and Cigna probably researched this
>>    question months ago in anticipation of just such a "problem". It may be
>>    safe to say that if anything had come up to put the "refund" in
>>    question,those legal types wouldn't have given the "go-ahead" for
>>    putting the amount on the forms. Does this make any sense?

> No, considering things like the bi-weekly payroll problem awhile back...

It seems that Digital did indeed research the legal aspects of bi-weekly
pay as evidenced by their letters to the various state labor boards asking
for exceptions.  The problem with bi-weekly pay was they weren't totally
honest nor open about it...  

    This is not a discussion of bi-weekly pay. Digital *may* have learned
    something from past mistakes. Anyway,what I was trying to say is that
    this issue *may* already have been decided quite some time ago. We'll
    know for sure within a few months, won't we? I mean,if people start
    getting checks by the end of January,we can lay this to rest and go on
    to some other enjoyable "rat-hole",eh?
    
    Ken

    Some of you folks are "pushing my buttons." :^) 
    
    The PLAN is/was a benefit not an INVESTMENT PLAN. The risk of individuals 
     being overcharged was not in the PLAN. IMHO
     
    The PLAN has a windfall balance AS A RESULT OF MANY PEOPLE OVERPAYING 
     PREMIUMS OVER MANY YEARS. IMNSHO
     
    The implementation of returning THE OVER-CHARGES leaves quite a bit 
     to argue. As evidenced here.
     
    Full disclosure of the "logic" behind the arbitrary date/amount/etc.
     is needed to understand all the assumptions and issues. IMHO
    
    Suppose the "logic" used was "all employees with even badge numbers
     get a rebate," how does that sound? Or employees with children? Or 
     employees that live in Iowa? Spin those.
    
    Unfortunately, this bickering hurts the relationships within the company
    at an inopertune time. Digital will probably (IMHO) bear the brunt of
    any financial repercussions. I believe this "refund rathole" has been 
    another example of this company's senior managers inability to fully 
    understand and address the possible ramifications of their decisions.
    
    cheers,
    		fred deady

    even badge numbers?  With children?
    
    I think that cancelling your policy is just a bit more definative than
    having an even badge number or birthing children.
    

FWIW - A recently (June) TFSO-ed individual who chose to continue to remain
in the optional life plan after termination (and who has the receipts to
prove it) called CIGNA's 800 number for questions and asked how much of
a refund he might be expecting as he was still a participant in the plan
as of August 17th, although not as a "current employee". He was told that
they'd look into the matter and get back to him.

As I mentioned before, I think folks in this situation are just as deserving
(if not moreso) of a piece of the action than those who opted out.

-Jack

    
    FWIW: Update to my parental leave situation (reply .70 something) ...
    
    I just call Cigna and found that I am eligible for my refund.  I
    was enrolled in the plan during my LOA, so it looks like the lack
    of "active" employee status did not matter in this case.
    
    -Maureen

    Re: .107-
    
    	Fortunately, you were able to get yourself a PIN and also
    are eligible for a refund. 
    
    	It's a shame that _you_ apparently had to take the initiative to
    exercise your rightful choice in the program.
    
    Phil

    This is just another Digital move to pit employee against employee.
    
 A.   If you're headed for a refund your delighted and except the status quo.
    
 B.   If you changed option life insurance carriers before Aug 17th you feel
      slated.
    
    I can't comprehend the viciousness of a few of the group A folks toward
    a group B individual justifying an appeal.
    I'm sure if some of the folks in group A were in group B they'd be
    singing a different tune. 
    
    I unfortunately am in group B and have appealed this decision.
    
    To me this is another morale killer.  
    
    
    Paul

    
    Paul,
    	How are you defining Vicious?  Good Grief!  Just because some say
    that one group is entitled and another is not, doesn't mean that they
    are vicious.
    	
    Jim Morton
    
    

    Really, if you think the argument has been vicious, I'm at a loss to
    understand why.
    
    Geez, Thanksgiving dinner conversation at Grandmoms is spicier than this 
    by a mile.  So's the stuffing!
    
    
    

 It really seems to me that setting an eligibility date is completely 
unnecessary; it seems as though eligibility ought to be determined
very easily. 

 Did you overpay premiums? Yes? Then you are eligible to receive a
refund for some portion of what you overpaid. (It really should be
all of the overpayed premium plus interest, but let's be somewhat
realistic.)

 I'd be some kind of PO if I overpayed and I were ineligible. I think
these people have a valid beef (even if my refund were to be reduced
as a result of being fair.)

 Do the right thing.  (A long forgotten principle).

    Gee WHIZ,
    
    Do we know when this pile of cash started building up?  
    
    What if you got out of the plan, and then it started accruing, do you
    still get it.
    
    What if you were in the plan, and got out, and then died - I do not
    believe you are truly in the plan unless you are active in it.  
    
    I do not believe that paying others would reduce my payment much, but 
    that is not the issue, rules are set, and usually followed.  (WE LEGAL
    MINDS OF DIGITAL - *NOT* ARE NOT THE ONES TO DETERMINE THIS.)
    	Right or Wrong a decision is made, I want to have a check in hand
    in January, not have a fight until WHO knows when.  
    
    If you found cheaper coverage, then hurray for you, but let me get 
    what I have comming and then have your day in court.
    
    Dave

    Nobody has mentioned this: What's going to happen in January if upper
    management just ignores this flap and the checks start going out as
    planned? Could we have some sort of mass protest? Could be
    interresting!
    
    Ken

>    Do we know when this pile of cash started building up?  
    
>    What if you got out of the plan, and then it started accruing, do you
>    still get it.
    
>    What if you were in the plan, and got out, and then died - I do not
>    believe you are truly in the plan unless you are active in it.  

 I think the following simple rule is sufficient:

>> Did you overpay premiums? Yes? Then you are eligible to receive a
>>refund for some portion of what you overpaid.

 What do you find deficient about this rule?

Why the "eligibility date" makes sense (to me) -

Let's assume for a moment that it's decided that all past and present
participants in the plan, ever, with no concern for any arbitrary
eligibility date, are due a refund. How is CIGNA, or John Hancock
or DIGITAL supposed to locate someone who dropped out of the plan
and is no longer in DIGITAL's employ? What if they left 2 years ago?
How about 5? How about 15?

With a relatively recent arbitrary eligibility date, there is a high
probability that most if not all eligible potential recipients can
be located. With no such date, the odds drop drastically.

-Jack

re : Note 2760.113  

>    Do we know when this pile of cash started building up?  
>    
>    What if you got out of the plan, and then it started accruing, do you
>    still get it.

yeah you're probably right, the bazillions of dollars started accumulating 
very recently and digital's excellent claims record used to be much worse.

>    If you found cheaper coverage, then hurray for you, but let me get 
>    what I have comming and then have your day in court.

spoken like a true selfish person.  this explains your logic.  

-craig

i'd like more arguments against the simple statement presented within the
last few replies. 

>> Did you overpay premiums? Yes? Then you are eligible to receive a
>>refund for some portion of what you overpaid.


re: Note 2760.116 

>Why the "eligibility date" makes sense (to me) -

i've got a plan that should make 'you' happy.  we'll keep the arbitrary date 
of aug 93.  everyone in the plan as of that date get's to split the 
accumulation since that date.  everyone who got out of the plan before that
gets to split the accumulation from prior to that date.  if some can't be
located then the amount gets split among those who can be found.  better yet
let's split it among only those who complained.  my cut could be hundreds of
thousands.  or better yet let's split it among - ME!  no one still in the 
plan will mind, rules are rules.  i could start my own insurance company.  i 
could get in where the real money is - i could not refund excess accumulated 
premiums at all, and keep the money, i could make more rules, i could be 
king, i could fall off my chair.....

re: .118

> i could fall off my chair.....

Yes - no doubt you probably could. What you couldn't do, though, is define
a rational means whereby you could divvy up the money to a well defined
group fairly. The present plan does all of that. The fact that folks not
in the well defined group don't think it's fair, is what's at issue.

Watch that chair, though . . . :^)

-Jack

    I'm *still* waiting for the "protest march"! (co-ordinated by the ACLU
    of course)
    
    Ken

I have never participated in the plan so I consider myself an impartial
observer. You may not...

This plan OBVIOUSLY screws ex-participants in favor of current particpants. If I
was a present contributor I would take my money and run but I would know in
my heart that part of the money in my pocket morally belongs to someone else.

I don't buy the line that ex-contributors would be that hard to locate. At least
an attempt could be made.

I am glad I never participated, if I had, I would be EXTREMELY upset to see
money I contributed going to other people.

IMHO,

joe

    
    
    I have a solution.  Give all the money to me, then noone will feel any
    worse. :')
    
    
    Mike

    
    
    	Two things come to mind:
    
    	1. No one should ever try to tell you (nor should you believe) that
    	   life has to be FAIR.
    
    	2. There is a growing wave in this coutry where people do not want
    	   to accept responsibility for their actions. (like blaming bar
    	   tenders when a person drinks more than they should and then gets
    	   into an accident - the drunk should be held responsible not the
    	   unwitting person who sold them the drink...but I am off the
    	   topic).  ACCEPT the fact that you volunterily dropped out of the
    	   plan for greener pastures AND accept the ramifications of that
    	   action for better or worse! (like wanting to marry someone but
    	   they were already married so you marry someone else then a week
    	   later the person you wanted to marry is available...do you get
    	   divorced claiming life isn't fair, if you had known this was
    	   going to happen you wouldn't have done it?).  Life is full of
    	   situations like the $$ refund and our inability to foresee what
    	   the future holds. (I probably would have taken the SERP package
    	   IF I had known.  The people who left in the first wave got the
    	   best deal...if only I had known! and so it goes.  We make our
    	   decisions as best we can and should learn to accept what comes
    	   without moaning our poor timing.  I get this with the stock
    	   purchase plan every 6 months.  If I sell immediately the price
    	   goes up.  If I hold onto it the price goes down!  It just isn't
    	   fair!  But, I've somehow learned to live with my decisions and
    	   realize that not everyone plays by my rules.  Hope you all can
    	   learn to live with yours and get some peace of mind.  Think of
    	   all the frustration and displeasure this event has caused you
    	   and ask yourself if it is seriously worth it!
    
    		There, I said it and I'm glad...Sad to see so much pain and
    	   bad feelings in this note string... Hope we can get on with our
    	   lives soon...
    				8^)
    	
    

    
    Re: .121
    
    > This plan OBVIOUSLY screws ex-participants in favor of current
    > particpants.  If I was a present contributor I would take my money
    > and run but I would know in my heart that part of the money in my
    > pocket morally belongs to someone else.
    
    You assume that the total of overpaid premiums is just being divided
    up among those who were on record as of the cutoff date.  That may
    not be the case.
    
    Steve
    

    One person we haven't heard from is /Nasser. His "biting commentary"
    and "down-home" logic make him the ideal person to sort this out and
    put it in perspective. (then again,maybe not)
    
    Ken

    
       Better yet, just give me all the money. 
    
       Rose

    Re Craig I believe, forgive me if I am wrong...
    
    In other words if you are not eligible and want the money, then you are
    not greedy... Give us all a break.
    
    Dave

    Insurance works due to a pooling of risk over time.
    Based upon actuarial tables and experience, this risk is quantifiable.
    On this basis a premium is computed.
    
    Over a sufficient time span with a large (and hence representative on
    the average) group, there would be no excess built up. For some periods
    with a certain mix of members, the plan may experience a surplus, for
    other periods with a differant mix, it may experience a deficit.
    
    However, we've had an unusual event; a line was drawn (the switching of
    plans) which prevents the law of averages from working its way into the
    future. The line happenned to have been drawn at a time when there was
    a surplus. Would those who argue they have a lifetime interest in the 
    plan (due to a finite period of particpation) also argue that if, per
    chance, this line had been drawn at a time when the plan had a deficit
    that they would be obligated to pay up their 'share' of the deficit
    since 'obviously' they hadn't contributed enough back then?

>    In other words if you are not eligible and want the money, then you are
>    not greedy... Give us all a break.


no but -            if you are eligible and don't want the money, then you are 
     not greedy.

did i argue using that obnoxious term?  sorry if i did.  but anyway i think 
all of us who would like to see a windfall from an insurance company are 
greedy to an extent.  

but i hope you are not concluding that your quote above must be my belief 
based on other things i have stated.  if so you must have taken a precipitous
leap in your logic.  -craig

    I get money.  Hooray!
    
    I've been evaluating other insurance for a year.  Thought I had some
    good alternatives.  
    
    Frances, my wife, handles the money.  She decided having the dollars
    auto paid was enough not to move.  I thought it was silly, I don't
    decide these things.  :)
    
    ANyway, had I changed.  Had I CANCELLED MY POLICY, I can assure you
    that I WOULD NOT be trying to justify a portion of that policy's
    benefit.
    
    I find the "idea" of marching in protest ridiculous and childish to the
    extreem.  Pass me the cheese, there be some good wine here!
    
    Parvenu

    
    
    	Just my two cents on this.  The insurance company offered insurance
    coverage at a certain price, if you agreed to the price you got the
    coverage.  I paid for something and got what I paid for.  The powers
    that be decided that we needed to change insurance company's and at that
    time there was excess cash left in the kitty.  Well as far as I'm
    concerned that was the insurance company's good fortune.  They didn't
    owe me anything I had all ready gotten what I paid for.  Now that
    they've decided to give the excess back to the customers, and put
    yourself in their shoes for this one who would you give the money to,
    loyal customers who stayed with you even though they could have gotten
    a slightly better deal somewhere else or somebody who bailed out at the
    first chance because the company down the road sold the same thing a
    few bucks a year less.  I know who I'd give it to.  Remember this is 
    all hypothetical I've no idea why they did what they did I'm just
    guessing like everyone else.

    Joe 

    I didn't get out of the "club" or plan for a "better deal." I needed
    the money for living expenses. Had I thought that there was any chance
    of receiving a refund I assure you I would have stayed in, at a lower
    rate of course. This string is NEXT UNSEEN.
    
    What goes around, sometimes comes around.
    
    	cheers,
    		fred deady

    Yeah, -1, I like your rational.  Point is, you cancelled your policy.
    You can't claim against it now.
    
    

    I am appalled by the unmitigated greed of those of you who would
    like to diminish my windfall. Does it give you pleasure in trying 
    to deny me a new 35" T.V or a vacation in the tropics ? How many
    of you panhandle on the side ?
    
    Mike

.115> I think the following simple rule is sufficient:
> 
> >> Did you overpay premiums? Yes? Then you are eligible to receive a
> >>refund for some portion of what you overpaid.
> 
> What do you find deficient about this rule?
    
    Hey, *NOBODY* overpaid! Everyone paid, voluntarily, and got their
    money's worth of insurance. Hence, nobody is eligible -- by the
    above reasoning -- for a refund. Unless, of course, there was an
    explicit contract ("if you can get the same insurance cheaper, we'll
    refund the difference", Lechmere Insurance Co.)
    
    I bought some DEC stock at $85 once. Did I overpay? No, I freely paid
    the going price. IT WAS JUST THE WRONG DECISION AND I HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT.
    
      John

    RE: .118
    
    Still sounds like sour grapes......
    
    Marc H.

    Isn't it *great* that every so often an issue comes up to inject some
    "liveliness" (is that a word?) in this forum?
    
    Ken

>    Hey, *NOBODY* overpaid!

 Then the insurance company is bestowing a gift to their ex-customers out
of the goodness of their heart? Ho ho!

	Does anyone have any idea when the checks will "start" to be
	distributed??  I know it says when you register/call in, they
	will all be distributed by the end of January.

	thanks

Re:           <<< Note 2760.139 by REGENT::NIKOLOFF "Imagine:" >>>

>	Does anyone have any idea when the checks will "start" to be
>	distributed??  I know it says when you register/call in, they
>	will all be distributed by the end of January.

Then I'd assume they'll mail them out around the beginning of the last week 
of January.  Why would they mail them earlier?  The money continues to earn
interest for them until the checks are cashed... 

-  David

    Hmmm, haven't been here for a while; I see nothing has changed! :-)

    I'd like to add a little snippet to bolster my argument that Digital
    ft-employees who have company-paid basic life are still members of
    of the PLAN, and are therefore entitled to participate in the refund
    of any optional premiums they have previously paid.

    Remember .89?

   > Re: .88
   >
   > > I am arguing that I AM still in the plan regardless of who's
   > > paying for it;
   >
   > What you are assuming is that it is all *one* contract.  It may
   > be that the optional plan is a totally separate contract having
   > nothing to do with the Digital provided insurance.
   >
   > Steve

        Here's a quote from the Digital U.S. Employees Benefits Book -
   1992 Edition, Section 14.3.2: (the emphasis is mine)

        "The Basic Life Insurance Plan, the Optional Life Insurance Plan
        and the Dependant Life Insurance Plan, all of which are part of THE
        PLAN known officially as the Group Insurance Plan, and the Business
        Travel Accident Plan are welfare plans. Benefits under the the Group
        Insurance Plan are provided through ONE insurance contract between
        Digital and the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company..."

        Sounds to me like ONE company, ONE plan, ONE contract. I am, and
   have been, a member of THE PLAN for 22 years without interruption. If
   refunds are being handed out to plan members based on their LIFELONG
   premiums, then I want a compelling argument of why I'm being told to
   get out of line. And please spare me the "life's not fair" crap. I have
   a right to be outraged when I see (IMNSHO) gross unfairness, and in the
   the country I live in, I have I the right to argue my case before an
   impartial arbiter. I have no reason to believe that Digital U.S. Benefits
   meets that description. If that makes me a *bully*, then so be it.

-john.
 

    My claim was rejected (I wasn't really surprised).  There was a fairly
    lengthy explanation.  My paraprhase is that Aug. 17 was chosen as a
    cut-off date, since that's when the SLT approved the new plan.  It was
    stated that only distributing among current members was consistent with
    insurance practices, since when you get out, you no longer share in the
    risks either.
    
    Bing

    .141
    
    So, you are not even in the group of people who PAID for optional
    insurance and then cancelled their policy for one reason or another?
    
    And you want a refund?  Oy!

    There are actually three contracts, 
    
    	19448-03
    	19448-08
    	19448-10.
    
    They are for Basic, Optional & Dependent Life and for Accidental
    Death & Dismemberment.
    
    Note the use of the "&" in the wording. 
    
    Gim
    

    re .143    
    >So, you are not even in the group of people who PAID for optional
    >insurance and then cancelled their policy for one reason or another?
    
   > And you want a refund?  Oy!

	For one who has entered so many notes in this string, I'm disappointed
   in the lack of attention you've paid to other's. Believe me, I PAID for
   optional life insurance for a LONG time. I'm puzzled as to how you came
   to that conclusion from .141. I have never argued that money be refunded
   to anyone who has not paid for premiums.

	Let me try to clarify the point I was trying to make. The only
   credible argument I've heard (and you have been a major proponent of it)
   AGAINST refunding premiums to those who stopped their optional coverage
   is that they LEFT the plan, or in your words "sold the garden". There is
   only ONE plan, ONE contract for both basic life and optional life. There
   is only ONE annual report for THE plan, and it has ONE sum of money. I am
   therefore argueing that an individual who changes his coverage from basic
   (2X salary up to $50K) + some optional coverage to only basic has not LEFT
   the plan, but has only reduced his coverage. BUT he is still in the plan.

	By the way, in case you haven't noticed, this gets Digital off the
   hook for all the folks who got TFSO'd, while keeping current employees
   happy! :-)  Actually, I think those folks deserve their money too...

	While I'm at it, how many of you folks who are getting refunds are
  signing up for CIGNA's inflated premiums in the hopes of getting a refund in
  your lifetime? Unless you're an above-average risk, I can't see any other 
  reason.

-john.

  re .144

   Sigh... well this certainly contradicts the U.S. Benefits Book. Well
   Gim, thanks again for enlightening us. I dare say that your notes in
   this string are most informative; a welcome relief. Somehow I get
   this vision of you snikering at us as you peruse this string. Up until
   now, your notes have been mostly factual... hey, it's late. How about
   letting your hair down and give us an opinion. If you were appointed
   arbiter in this case, how would you decide?

	I'd respect your opinion, it might even shut me up.

-john.

    	No matter when or where somebody gets an unexpected windfall
    whether they deserved it or not there is always a group that figures
    they should have it also.  It doesn't matter that they don't meet the
    criteria that was set up, all they know is the next person has it so
    they should also.  That fact is you folks bailed out of the plan or the 
    part of the plan we're dealing with here before the date specified and 
    are therefore are getting zip, learn to live with it or cause yourself 
    ulcers worrying about it.

    Joe    

Suppose you lived in state "XYZ" for 15 years and then moved from
there in December. In January, the XYZ state auditor announces that
there is a surplus in the XYZ Misc. fund that has built up over the
past 15 years. The XYZ Misc. fund was funded by XYZ taxpayers.

You write to the auditor of XYZ state and ask how much your refund will
be and you are told the following:

"You are not a resident of XYZ and are not eligible".

When asking for further clarification, you hear this:


.147>No matter when or where somebody gets an unexpected windfall
.147>whether they deserved it or not there is always a group that figures
.147>they should have it also.  It doesn't matter that they don't meet the
.147>criteria that was set up, all they know is the next person has it so
.147>they should also.  That fact is you folks bailed out of the plan or the 
.147>part of the plan we're dealing with here before the date specified and 
.147>are therefore are getting zip, learn to live with it or cause yourself 
.147>ulcers worrying about it.

If people had known of a potential, forthcoming disbursment of 'excess
premiums' they may have stayed in the plan.

Lee

    
>> If people had known of a potential, forthcoming disbursment of 'excess
>> premiums' they may have stayed in the plan.
    
    Or they may have moved to another plan that they felt offered a better
    deal.  One that they KNEW was real, instead of just having potential.
    
    Jim Morton

    For what it's worth:
    
    I understand that even long-time residents of Alaska,if moving to
    another state,are not eligible for the once-per-year dividend that
    state pays residents. Boy,is that un-fair or what? 
    
    Ken

    re whoever
    
    Nah, I don't pay much attention to who writes what here.  Sorry if I
    offended you by not committing your historical replys to memory. :)
    
    re -1
    
    Yes.  That's the ticket.

Yesterday I got two forms from CIGNA.  The first was confirmation of my choices
and asking for my wife's name & SSN for the optional spouse life insurance.  It
came with a pre-paid reply envelope. 

The other form was for my wife to sign asking questions relating to the 
optional spouse life insurance.  IT HAD HER NAME AND SSN ON THE FORM and it
came with an envelope on which I'd have to place postage. 

I called them up. The person who answered could not explain the apparent 
discrepancy but did say that the different "Teams" to whose attention they were
supposed to be directed were one and the same.  So I could use the pre-paid
envelope to return both forms.

Talk about the left hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.  I hope this
isn't a sign of how things are going to be handled by CIGNA long term...  :-( 

-  David

    I only received the note for the Spouse, was I "suppose" to receive a
    confirmation?  

The are forcing you to confirm SSN and such to prove that the spouse is
really there.  Wouldn't want you to take out a policy against someone or
something that wasn't real...

    
    I got the confirmation, but not the separate spouse form.
    
    Glenn

   Re .155
   
   I think the separate spouse form is if you are signing up the spouse for
   more than $10K.
   
   

    Re: .152 (postage)-
    
    	It annoyed me too, but I spent the $.29 when I noticed that the 
    last 4 Zip Code digits were different on the two envelopes figuring
    that miss-routing wasn't worth the worry/expense. My skeptical side
    says that Cigna saved a few hundred $ assuming that the employee &
    spouse forms would be returned in separate mailings as sent...
    
    Re: .155, .156-
    
    	I think it's for amounts >$30k for the spouse.
    
    Phil
    	

    I got only the spouse letter.  Instructions said to return in the
    enclosed envelope, but there was none.

    I sent it back to the return address - I hope it gets there, because
    the letter said if they didn't receive a reply, they would assume you
    wanted no insurance.

    I hate these damn default actions...

    L.

    
    re: couple back
    
    Nope.  Signed my spouse up for 100K. One of the forms said
    "waiting to hear from the underwriter for 70K" or some
    such.  It also wanted her SSN (which I had provided to the
    automated system previously).  Now I'm wondering what happened
    to the spouse form and how important it was.
    
    Glenn

    I, too, got both forms... I am already "tired" of filling out forms for
    the same damn information for this company!
    
    When I opted to increase my wife's coverage to $100,000 I was told I'd
    have to answer three questions... so I did.  
    
    I answered them on the telephone.
    
    I answered them on a form sent me from CIGNA.
    
    I answered them again on a form sent from CIGNA...
    
    I answered them *** again *** on another form from CIGNA!
    
    Four seperate times I was asked the same three questions.  Fours times
    I gave the same answers.  I'm really anticipating a wonderful
    relationship with this new "service" provider!
    
    tony

    Re: .146
    
    Arbitrating this situation would merely be treating the symptons of the
    problem. This whole situation could have been avoided if Digital had
    reduced the life insurance premiums. Since the contract was "experience
    rated", Digital indeed had that option. For whatever reasons Digital
    chose NOT to change the premiums.  Hence the $42 million surplus
    accumulated over the past 6-7 years.
    
    Gim
    

	A friend of mine, who was TFSO's, contacted CIGNA, and he will be getting
	a rebate. But they didn't tell him how much.

	He was in the optional plan for 5-6 years, at 5 times his salary.
	Anyone have any idea what he'll recieve for a check??

	Thnaks

	Ken

    Re .161
    I don't know what rate information you were looking at, but I am
    getting
    more coverage now for less money, and every employee under age 55 is as
    well.
    

    Isn't it the law that when life insurance companies pay a claim,they
    have to notify the IRS? Doesn't the IRS track us by SSN? How then is it
    a bad thing that Digital gave CIGNA every proposed insured's SSN? If
    I'm wrong and CIGNA *really* doesn't need that number,I apologize.
    
    Ken

    re: .-1
    
    The IRS uses things called TINs: Taxpayer ID Numbers.  Most people use
    SSNs for this purpose, but that is not an IRS requirement.  Note that
    entities other than people have to file tax returns, and they don't
    have SSNs.
    
    As far as I know, in fact, the law is that only the Social Security
    Administration is allowed to deal with your SSN.

    Re .168:
    
    > As far as I know, in fact, the law is that only the Social Security
    > Administration is allowed to deal with your SSN.

    That's not true.  Public Law 93-579 (Privacy Act) provides some
    regulation of use of Social Security Account Number by government
    agencies.  It provides no regulation for private companies or persons. 
    And it has been weakened by subsequent legislation that allows various
    government agencies to use the number for various purposes.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To get PGP, FTP /pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23A.zip from ftp.funet.fi.
For FTP access, mail "help" message to DECWRL::FTPmail or open Upsar::Gateways.

hey, i thought this note is for us no-refunders to piss and moan in.
why are you cigna cry baby's cluttering up this note with all your
non-related pissing and moaning. 

btw, i got my official party line letter saying that my appeal was rejected.

then i come to work last friday and find this on the coffee machine:

    these donuts are for the people who regularly by coffee here.  they are 
    puchased with excess proceeds from the coffee revenues.  if you don't buy 
    your coffee here these donuts are not for you.

i never buy coffee there, but i put my quarter in, took my cup of coffee - 

AND the two dozen donuts.  i'm in the plan now.

i learned something in this note,
craig

    It's real nice to have an entry like that. (coffee machine etc.) Now,if
    only the rest of you could be satisfied with some do-nuts...
    
    Ken 

    Question regarding the "refund" or whatever you want to call it.
    
    Since some of the premiums were pre-taxed dollars and some wern't,
    will witholding be taken out of these checks we are to receive?
    
    Any idea????
    
    Toodles.....JP
    

    
    
    Read the material, it is nontaxable.

    has anyone recieved the "refund" yet ?  i know there's a couple of
    days left in January,  .....are they aiming at the 31st ? 
    
    frank

    I called their toll free number today, and they claim all checks
    to be mailed by 1/31/94.

	Sounds like they will mail them Monday so it's postmarked 31-Jan.
	Those who asked for electronic deposit (like me) may get it
	zapped into their accounts just before midnight Monday ;^)

	I believe they are collecting interest on 31 day's of our $$$

	Wonder how much that might be?

Hi,

Could anyone tell me who I should call. I was supposed
to receive one of the life insurance pay backs, the
letter I received said that I would receive a check by
Jan 18, 1994, and yet still no check ( I suppose its
in the mail...) 

I am wondering how I can find our whats going on. Perhaps
something bad has happend or it got lost. Thanks for any
pointers.

Signed,

TiredofWaiting

    
    RE: .-1
    
    >Those who asked for electronic deposit...
    
    Where was this an option?  I don't recall having the ability
    to specify my refund to be depositied electronicly.
    
    

    
    I just called the insurance company.  She told me checks were going out
    today, Thursday, the 27th and Friday the 28th.  Let's see how fast we
    get them!!

    Let me see if I can get my questions answered in a constructive manner.

    I guess I goofed when I received that *package* because when I read the
    first few lines saying "if you don't want to change you coverage, do
    nothing" (or something to that effect).. Well, in doing that, I missed
    the small print regarding this $$$.... 

    I realize some of these questions may have been answered already, but
    reading through this topic, with all the infighting, I most probably
    missed the answers.... I've been in the plan for 12.5 years at 5x So, 
    here goes...

    1. If I "did nothing", do I still receive a check, even though I "did
       nothing" and it's past the enrollment period...?

    2. Is there someone to contact, that may know what I can do *to* get 
       some of this $$$, if I have in fact missed out?

    Sorry for the questions, after the fact, but I hadn't been reading the
    replies due to the bickering..
    
    Thanks!
    
    Bob
    

    
    Re: .180
    
    Call the toll free number for help from CIGNA.  I think it's
    probably somewhere in one of the replies to this basenote.
    They can tell you what the result is.  In any case you don't
    "lose" the money.  It is still credited to you but perhaps
    not the way you might have chosen.  If I remember correctly,
    however, I believe the default is that you are sent a check
    unless you specify otherwise.
    
    Steve
    
    Steve
    

    Bob,

    I too planned on doing nothing, so I never even opened the envelop that
    was delivered in Oct/Nov.... then people started talking about how much
    they were getting back... so I opened it and had a pleasant surprise,
    but the time period had already passed.  I called, they said for those
    of us who did nothing, our policies would not change and checks would
    be issued to our mailing address.  The only thing I noticed different
    was, for my daughter I use to have $9000 coverage, and they don't have
    that coverage with this policy.. it got jumped to the next highest
    amount.

    So, bottom line, if you did nothing, you will be receiving a check in
    the mail.

    M-L

    I started this basenote to alert people about this... if you read thru
    .0 (which contains extracts from other notes) I think you will find
    that "if you do/did nothing" that your cash rolls over into an
    'accumulation account'. I do not get the idea that your check is
    automatic.
    
    Now, if you are not taking any coverage with the new life insurance
    then maybe you do get a check...
    
    Lee

    Thank You .181 & .182 for your quick response. Also, thanks to .183 for
    your response. I do have one question for you which I hope will not
    cause additional bickering... That is not my intention.
    
    The question is; If you *read* your packet and drew the conclusion you
    did... AND .182 called the folks and received the information he
    entered, how are we coming up with totally opposed situations.
    
    Thanks again!
    
    Bob
    

    
      FYI: I spoke with CIGNA last night.  Coverage verifications will
    be sent out over the next couple of weeks according to their
    representative.
    
           Mark

    
    FYI;  I just called CIGNA to find out if the checks were sent out
    since I had been told we would have them in hand by Jan. 31st.
    
    The lady who answered said they were not sent out and she did NOT
    know when they would be sent out.  She would have any answer by the
    end of the week.  
    
    She gave me a DTN of our Digital person to call - I got VOICEmail when
    I tried calling the number
    
    Dianne

    Re .186
    
    Maybe they are reconsidering their decision to only give money to those
    who were still in the plan. This is just a theory on my part but I
    wouldn't be surprised if I'm on the right track.
    
    Dave

    	Why should that, even if true, stop them from sending out the other
    checks...unless they plan to split the pie more ways? I knew this was
    too good to be true! I really should have known better than to make
    plans on money this company promised me. Fortunately, my wife STILL
    doesn't believe it and never has!

    Re .-1
    
    Maybe they do plan to split the pie more ways and the promised pieces
    now have to be smaller. I just read the other notes string on this. It
    seems that there are at least 5 different explanations being put out as
    to why there are no cheques.
    
    Dave

    I just called the CIGNA 800 number this morning and was told that the
    checks would be mailed out today or tomrrow.  No explanation was given
    as to why they were not sent out yet.

    It was pointed out by two people I work with that the checks were to be
    mailed out AS SOON AFTER JANUARY 31 as possible, according to their
    memory of the letter (I haven't dug mine out).
    
    Perhaps we have been tilting at windmills ??
    

    
    
	Well, it was told to 'me' ....we would *receive* the
	checks BY JAN 29th

	Most of us have been counting on that money; I know
	I have.

	8-|

    Just to stir things up a bit :^).  This *IS* a computer company, I
    thought.  The coverage from the old plan lapsed on 1-1-94; we were told
    in November (or thereabouts) the amounts we would be receiving.  So
    someone must have known/been able to compute the amounts of the checks. 
    What is so bloody difficult to run a batch job on Jan. 2 to print the
    checks and have them in the mail the next day?!?  There couldn't be
    more checks than the number of US employees, which is less than 45K. 
    This is not rocket science.
    
    I don't understand....  Oh, the float?
    
    Never mind.

    I just received mail, that stated "administrative problems" as the
    reason the checks were not mailed by the end of Jan. It also stated
    they (the checks) would be mailed tomorrow 2/2/94.
    
    Greg
    
    PS. - I would post the mail, but I already deleted it.

                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     01-Feb-1994 02:37pm EST
                                        From:     Readers Choice

TO: See Below

Subject: #4777-Optional Life Insurance Refund                        

From  U.S. BENEFITS, DTN 223-6234


  SUBJECT: OPTIONAL LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM - CLAIM STABILIZATION        
             RESERVE REFUND MAILED FEBRUARY 2, 1994
    
  As communicated in the October 1993 Benefits Bulletin and the Optional 
  Life Insurance Open Enrollment materials, employees who were covered 
  by the Optional Life Insurance Program on August 17, 1993 will receive 
  a share of the Claim Stabilization Reserve.  The money was scheduled 
  to be distributed in January 1994 but administrative delays precluded 
  this. 
    
  Checks, however, have now been printed and will be mailed on 
  Wednesday, February 2.
    
  We sincerely regret this delay and apologize for any inconvenience it 
  may have caused.
  

Distribution:
This message was delivered to you utilizing the Readers Choice delivery 
services.  You received this message because you are a U.S. Digital 
Employee who requested a refund.  If you have questions regarding this 
message, please contact the author of the memo.

Sitting back and watching this, I'm struck by a number of things:

First of all, I'm disappointed but not surprised at the bungling of this
refund distribution.  Yes, I can use the money, and, yes, the sooner, the
better.  On the other hand, Digital Management's desperation has been
obvious for some time, as demonstrated by the accounting tricks of the last
several quarters' results.  I'm not surprised by Digital and Cigna failing
to meet their commitment to have the funds in my hands by the end of
January -- it is par for the course.

Secondly, I'm not surprised by the bitching in notes files -- first by
those who don't get refunds and then by those who were expecting theirs
already.  It shows, quite graphically, how low our collective morale has
sunk.

I do ask myself, however, "Bob, what would it be like if Digital said that
the checks would go out by the end of *March*"?  Well, first of all, there
would be the tirades about "How come I can't have it sooner?"  When that
quieted down, we would wait until that time for the "I want it now!"
chorus.

So, I wonder if the outrage about the delay is financial -- as in, "I spent
that money already!"  Or, is the outrage at the lack of communication:
"Can't they let us know?  Captain, Oh Captain, Oh Where is my Captain?" 
Might it be simple greed: "I want mine and I want it NOW!"  Lastly, is it
lack of trust: "I want my money before DIGITAL rescinds it! I want my money
before DIGITAL Folds!"

Thoughts?

BobW

re:             <<< Note 2760.197 by SPECXN::WITHERS "Bob Withers" >>>

When I was first notified about this several months ago, they always
said the refund would be the end of Jan. So, I don't think 2/2 is bad at
all. I just wish all our products and project delivery was as timely.

There have been a lot of appeals, a lot of information that had to
be gathered. Thousands of refunds based on years of contributions
seems to be a pretty complex procedure. I am not upset with the two
day delay in the mailing of checks.

- John

    Received the money today, and spent it 5 min. later.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .200
    
    Let me phase that another way....within 5 min. I payed back my loan
    I took out in November.
    
    Marc H.

    Received mine in the Saturday mail.
    
    Chet

According to the Middlesex News (a Massachusetts newspaper), Digital has reached
a settlement with retirees for more than 6 million for their share of the fund.
A Boston attorney said the potential claimants could reach 30,000.

I think this means that Digital and John Hancock will pay the remainder of the
fund to participants who were not active when the plan was switched to CIGNA last
year.  

Anybody know about this?

Dave

    
    re: .203
    
    The article I read in the Sunday Boston Globe gave an address and 
    directions for filing a claim. I was under the impression that any
    former employee (not just retirees) that had participated in the JH
    optional plan for those years was able to file. I am *not* positive, but
    pretty sure. The article also mentioned that triple damages were not going
    to be paid as requested. It sounded like these folks would just be
    getting their fair share of the funds....(And rightly so IMHO). Sorry,
    I no longer have the Globe to check for sure. 
    
    I'm not sure if I answered your question in .203 though...
    
    /Charlie
    
    

    I read it to mean that those who had been part of the plan when
    it was being overpaid into would get their fair share.  It has
    a time limit set for when to apply for your refund.  Can't re-
    member the date but it is by Spring this year.  I would imagine
    that you would only get that amount that one had paid over the
    determined rate...the same as those that had been in the program
    at the time of the first payout.

    justme....jacqui

    
    Notes collision....ouch  :^)
    
    I believe the date was mid March 95.
    
    /Charlie

    /Charlie,

    Sounds right to me.  I do believe that some of Dec's libraries
    carry the GLOBE and would have the info.  The papers don't get
    tossed until the following Monday.

    justme....jacqui

    p.s.  Who gets to collect on the crash insurance?  ;*)

    
    It appears I entered the intersection first, and you struck me...My
    agent will be contacting you... :^)
    
    Cheers,
    Charlie

    No wonder you are so cheerful...you THINK you entered first!

    METPAY TO THE RESCUE...


    justme

    RE: .204
    
       Do you remember in what section of the Sunday Globe this was in.
    I could not find it.

    Is it just former employees, or are current employees also included?  I
    missed the cutoff by two weeks.
    
    Bing

    If someone has the contact phone number/address I would be grateful
    if you could post it here.
    
    Thanks,
    
    MR

    It was in the Business Section of the Sunday Globe if I recall.

From the Middlesex News:

"If you think you are entitled to share in the settlement, 
you must complete a 'proof of claim' form postmarked by 
March 30 and send it to

	David Berdon & Co., LLP
	PO Box 1759
	Grand Central Station
	New York, NY 10163
	Attn. Digital Insurance Litigation

For more information, call 1-800-766-3330."

I called this number and a woman took my name and address.
She said were putting together a list and would send me
information and the form.

In my case, I contributed 3X my salary for 8 years before going
back to 1X July 1993.  I missed the cutoff by six months, but I
think I should get a refund for all the years I contributed.

Dave  

    
    re: 210 >>>Do you remember in what section of the Sunday Globe this was
               in?
    
    
    It is possible that it was the Middlesex News as I looked at both 
    papers at my sisters house while visiting on Sunday...Sorry If the  
    Globe was a bad pointer!!!
    
    /Charlie
    

    I think it was in the business section of the MiddleSex News, though it
    may have been in other ppaper also - but that paper has already gone
    into the maw of the recycling truck, so I can't look it up for you,
    sorry.
    
    /Charlotte

    
    	I got a refund from them last year and as far as I'm concerned they
    shouldn't have had to pay even me.  If I remember correctly when I
    singed up for the extra coverage (4X in my case ) they stated their
    prices up front.  I agreed with the prices and they agreed to provide
    the coverage.  So why years later do they owe people refunds?  I got
    what they said they where going to provide, why shouldn't they get what
    I said I'd provide.  

    Joe

I'm sure they wouldn't be returning the money if it wasn't in their contract
with Digital to do so.

Bob

    I received an official looking notice of this class-action lawsuit and
    proposed settlement in the mail Monday (1/23/95).  It was sent at
    least to all identifiable former participants in the optional life
    insurance plan from June 30, 1986 through July 16, 1993.  Current
    employees, former employees, retirees; everyone who contributed excess
    premiums and did not receive any refund of same.
    
    I can only summarize my elation upon receiving/reading the notice as
    "justice, sweet justice"!  I only wish that this had been handled
    appropriately from the beginning and all the ensuing crap, expense,
    squandering of goodwill, trust, etc. (as has been repeated ad-nauseum
    by this company in the recent dark years...) would have been avoided.
    
    For once, I feel a bit "unscrewed" and "unskewered" thanks to the
    efforts of some (presumably) ex-digital employees and a few good legal
    eagles.
    
    I will not argue, debate, or defend my words/thoughts.  I simply want
    to savor the moment and hope that perhaps this is an omen that better
    days lie ahead...

re .219

 >   I received an official looking notice of this class-action lawsuit and
 >   proposed settlement in the mail Monday (1/23/95).  It was sent at
 >   least to all identifiable former participants in the optional life
 >   insurance plan from June 30, 1986 through July 16, 1993.  Current
 >   employees, former employees, retirees; everyone who contributed excess
 >   premiums and did not receive any refund of same.
    
     Who sent this? I fall into the above category, but didn't receive this
     mailing; I was planning on notifying folks I know who left DEC but maybe
     now I don't need to!
	  
 >   I can only summarize my elation upon receiving/reading the notice as
 >   "justice, sweet justice"!  I only wish that this had been handled
 >   appropriately from the beginning and all the ensuing crap, expense,
 >   squandering of goodwill, trust, etc. (as has been repeated ad-nauseum
 >   by this company in the recent dark years...) would have been avoided.
 >   
 >   For once, I feel a bit "unscrewed" and "unskewered" thanks to the
 >   efforts of some (presumably) ex-digital employees and a few good legal
 >   eagles.
  
     Uhmm; let me see...
		$6.5M
               -  650K  (legal fees to bring the suit)
               -  250K+ (DEC's expenses, mostly legal)
               -  125K+ (John Hancock's expenses, again mostly legal) 
               -  ???   some unspecified amount held back in case some folks
                         decide to continue the suit

            all divided by 30,000. My guess is about $150 left per member of
     the class; to be payable not before August 1996. I suggest you resist
     lowering your pants for that "unscrewing"; you may be in for a surprize.

     For those of you who care, it won't cost DEC a nickel for this settlement.
     The company held back $4M of the Claim Stabilization Fund (I wonder why?),
     and there is expected to be some $2.3M left of the Claim Stabilization
     Fund still held by John Hancock; plus interest, etc. and you get the
     $6.5M. All expenses incurred by DEC and JH, plus the costs associated
     with the suit will be deducted from the $6.5M. Also, the settlement has
     only been proposed, the court must still approve it.

     Seems to me that the only people who win here are, as usual, the lawyers.
     And to those of you who got refunds, the lawyers are being paid with 
     money that should have been refunded to you as well!
     

     pfffft...

-john. - still_mad_as_hell_about_this -

    >     Uhmm; let me see...
    >               $6.5M
    >              -  650K  (legal fees to bring the suit)
    >              -  250K+ (DEC's expenses, mostly legal)
    >              -  125K+ (John Hancock's expenses, again mostly legal) 
    >              -  ???   some unspecified amount held back in case some folks
    >                         decide to continue the suit
    
    There was also something in the mailout about the lawyers seeking an
    award of $1k per claimant.
    
    Bing
    

I also received the mailing.

	Steve

    Well gee, if they held some back, then I figure all of us who did meet
    the original distribution criteria should have more coming back to us.
    
    All right! Time for another class action suit :-)
    
    Dave

    Re: .220, the notice has a return address (presumably was sent by):
    
    		David Berdon & Co. L.L.P.
    		P.O. Box 1759
    		Grand Central Station
    		New York, New York 10163
    		Attention: Digital Insurance Litigation
    
    The dollars notwithstanding, vindication has its own rewards...

>    Well gee, if they held some back, then I figure all of us who did meet
>    the original distribution criteria should have more coming back to us.
>
>    All right! Time for another class action suit :-)

   My thoughts exactly.

   Reality check.

        - The premiums paid in were based upon projected claim rates
        - Digital Employee's weren't filing claims as fast as the norm
        - The plan was terminated
        - Funds were distributed to those who would otherwise be rightfully
          entilted to a claim

   What is so difficult to understand?  It wasn't a REBATE but rather a
   LIQUIDATION.  One may try to argue the premium rates may have been
   excessive, but the term "Buyer Beware" comes to mind.

   If Digital/JH did hold back moneys and does pay out to non-participants,
   I could easily be convinced that a class action suit should be in order.
   Also, the non-participant recipients should also be named as co-defendants.

   Andy

    I received monies from some insurance company when we changed to CIGNA
    and I`m not sure if I know what insurance you folks are talkin about
    other than that.                                                  

re: .225

>   If Digital/JH did hold back moneys and does pay out to non-participants,
>   I could easily be convinced that a class action suit should be in order.
>   Also, the non-participant recipients should also be named as co-defendants.


Before you start making such harsh statements, perhaps you should point out
the note that states that non-participants were asking for money.

Bob

The other important point is that it's not "non-participants" who are
being included in this latest action but those who did participate for a
while, paying the too-high premiums, but stopped participation before the
arbitrary magic date which qualified those who received distributions.

As for money held back - I doubt any was.  Any new distribution will probably
come out of Digital or JH's wallet.

					Steve

Re: 228

> As for money held back - I doubt any was.  Any new distribution will probably
> come out of Digital or JH's wallet.

The money is coming from  a claim stabilization reserve - not from JH or
Digital.  A possible impact is that insurance premiums for
current policy holders could go up if the mortality rates go up.
Based on recent data, that appears to be the trend.

This is another reason why some employees may want to
consider other life insurance companies.  Digital life insurance
is only a benefit for those employees who can't qualify for
insurance elsewhere - or who don't mind the extra cost for
the convenience of weekly deduction.


Gim

re .225

  > What is so difficult to understand?  It wasn't a REBATE but rather a
  > LIQUIDATION.  One may try to argue the premium rates may have been
  > excessive, but the term "Buyer Beware" comes to mind.

      Uhmm, I understand... but I disagree! Is THAT hard to understand?

	You call it a "LIQUIDATION"; I call it a "refund of excess premiums".
    What WE call it is irrelevant; this issue is being decided where it
    belongs: in the U.S. Courts. The fundamental basis for argument in this
    issue is the manner in which the excess was distributed. I would expect
    that in the case of a "LIQUIDATION", the amount a "participant" would
    receive would be based on his PRESENT participation, i.e. the amount of his
    PRESENT coverage, or maybe his PRESENT premiums. That is not the way this
    excess was distributed. The amount a "participant" received was calculated
    by taking simply taking 59.6% of the premiums that had been paid over the
    life of that participant's participation in the plan. This left the door
    open for people who had paid premiums throughout the same period to make a
    claim, especially retirees who likely had larger lifetime contributions.

	The frustrating part of this whole thing is that any reasonable
    person could have seen this argument comming, and, in light of all the
    former "participants" that left the company involuntarily, the ensuing
    litigation. The end result is that the company is capitulating and the
    former "participants" will get some of their money, and the lawyers get
    to split $1.5M out of the fund instead of us. If the people in charge of
    this process had "done the right thing", all of these hard feelings could
    have been spared, not to mention the negative press. 


-john_who_is_now_officially_a_member_of_the_class

SOmeone kindly pointed out to me the following statement which I made in
note 1.16:
 
        <<< HUMANE::DISK$CONFERENCES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1.16                    Introduction and Policy                    16 of 18
QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent"      14 lines  29-MAR-1993 08:55
            -< Don't make remarks about Digital's legal liability >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find myself having to repeat a statement made in note 1.0:

    Also be mindful of the interest of the company. Don't make remarks
    that may result in legal liability for Digital.
    
DO NOT make remarks about whether or not you think Digital could be sued if
it took some particular action.  Such remarks could be extremely damaging
to Digital in the future.

Please leave the legal issues to the corporate legal staff.  Remember that
what you enter here becomes a "corporate document" which could be used as
evidence in a trial, no matter how unqualified the author.

				Steve


----------

I'm unsure how this actually applies to the discussion at hand and will ask
for some clarification from someone in "Corporate", but for now, please avoid
discussions of what might or might not result in Digital getting sued (that
is, in addition to the suit already in progress.)  I'm not sure if we really
ought to be discussing the current suit either.

				Steve

    I think the people who are to receive any distribution are those TSFO'd
    while participating in the plan, not those who decided to cancel their
    insurance plan, for whatever reason, prior to the cut off date.
    
    The way it ought to be, anyway. 

    >> ... people who are to receive any distribution are those TFSO'd
    >> while participating in the plan, not those who decided to cancel ...
    
    This may not be true. 
    
    I know of at least one current employee who paid into the insurance
    plan for several years, and canceled it about 2 months before this
    decision/announcement was made. He is making application to be included
    in the distribution and has been lead to believe (by those he talked
    to) that he is eligible. We'll know for sure if he actually gets a
    check. This at least implies that it does not only apply to those who
    were transitioned.
    
    /se
    
    

Re: .232

I'm in that situation.

The logic seems to be that the rates for the optional coverage were too 
high, therefore those who paid the high rates should receive a refund.
The basis for the suit appears to be that the initial selection of who would
receive the refund was arbitrary and left out many who should also be
eligible for a refund (albeit a lower amount based on the length of time
they were in the plan.)

				Steve

    Re: .230 and .234, well stated and exactly as I've seen it since this
    issue first surfaced over a year ago.  (I never did receive any
    response to my letter to Corp. Personnel whomevers stating all these points
    and more...).
    
    This buyer was "bewared" which is why he stopped buying digital's
    optional life insurance less than a year prior to the infamous Aug. 19,
    1993 Arbitrary Cut-off Date.  The optional coverage was simply way 
    over-priced for me (something like 50% more expensive than externally
    available term coverage), and the risk from loss of coverage due to
    the ever-present possibility of TFSO was too great.  

	The suit and proposed settlement covers "All present and former US
  employees of Digital ... who purchased Otional Life Insurance... during
  any portion of the period from June 30, 1986 through August 16, 1993,
  inclusive, but who were not covered... on August 17, 1993." This is from a
  document I received from David Berdon & Co. LLP after I called the 800 number
  listed back a few replies.

	If you think you should be included, call them. Your inclusion in
  the class will likely not change DEC's cost for this settlement, since
  that's comming from the Claim Stabilization Fund; the same fund that
  the original distribution was made from.

	The document further states:
	
	"The plaintiffs brought this suit against the defendants as a class
  action ... under the Employee Income Security Act (ERISA) and under
  Massachusetts law..." The basis of the suit is that Digital violated the
  law by excluding the plaintiffs and the members of the class. Whether it
  did or not would have been up to the court to decide. Digital denies the
  charges, and has agreed to settle this suit, without admission of guilt, 
  by making available (along with JH) ~$6.5M from the Claim Stabilization
  Fund to 1) pay everyone's expenses and 2)distribute among the plaintiffs
  and members of the class.


-john.

    
    I also fall into the category of those who paid 5X into the plan but
    terminated it six months before the magic date. I terminated it because
    I realized that the rates, particularly for a group policy were
    substantially higher than what I could get on the outside. Further, if you
    terminated employment the policy was terminated and you had no coverage
    or cash value....bad deal all around. 
    
    I formally applied for a rebate of those excess premiums and got a very
    carefully worded letter from personnel that the rules was the rules and
    basically tough luck for being so intuitive. 
    
    No, I didn't start the class action suit but rebate or not I applaud the
    group that did. The fact that a reserve fund was created in the first
    place tells me someone suspected or even knew that the rules for the 
    previous distribution were not fair and would not stand in court. 
    
    If you think the class action suit is incorrect ask yourself where would
    the excess premiums we paid have gone if there was no class action suit? 
    If you believe that somehow those monies would ultimately benefit the
    employees I have a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.
      
    JLB

    Sunday January 15, Middlesex News Paper - Business Section:
    
    If you think you are entitled to share in the settlement, you must
    complete a "proof of claim" form postmarked by March 30 and send it to:
    David Berdon & Co., LLP, P.O. Box 1759, Grand Central Station, New
    York, NY 10163 Attn: Digital Insurance Litigation.  For more
    information, call 1-800-776-3330.
    
    Hope this helps.

    The 800-number for more information referenced in .238 does not work. 
    Anyone else try it and have the same difficulty?  Any else have another
    number that does work so we can obtain more information...?

    
    >>>The 800-number for more information referenced in .238 does not work.
    
    
    Looks like there was a typo made... .214 lists a different number
    (one digit different).
    
    
    From .214  Hopefully this is correct...Let us know if it works!!!
    
            David Berdon & Co., LLP
            PO Box 1759
            Grand Central Station
            New York, NY 10163
            Attn. Digital Insurance Litigation
    
    For more information, call 1-800-766-3330."
                                      ^
                                      | Was a "7" in .238 (must be a "6")
    
    /Charlie
    
                                      
                          

    Any info on the March 20, 1995 hearing in Boston to finalize the judges
    decision?
    
    Some of comments on this:
    
    - High praise for the initiators of the Class action suit.  They showed
      conviction and drive.
      . James Michniewich
      . James Raschilla
      . William Barron
      . Anthony Luzzi
      . Eli Glazer and
      . Joe Johnston
    
    - For the initial Aug 17, 1993 distribution;  Digital Legal really blew 
      this and cost the company somewhere between 1-3 million legal fees to
      date.  It apeared they knew they were on thin ice by holding some of
      the surplus monies.
    
    - The present Digital legal team seemed to do well for the company
      since all legal fees will be taken out of the payout.
      It reads like a David Berdon & Co compromised quite a bit.
    
    - Between what I see as outrageous legal fees, additional money tags,
      possible physical moves between now and the fall of 1996, we will be
      lucky to see any just payouts by Aug 1996.
    
     Back to work...
    
    Cheers,
    Paul

Seems to me that since Digital was in the wrong, Digital should pay the legal
fees, they should NOT come out of the payout.

Of course, the cynical me says that the lawyers always make sure they get
their money first and don't care about the client.  The recent airline
anti-trust and the GM pickup truck settlements are examples of this.

Bob

    Nice check in the mail yesterday.  Thank you David Berdon & Co.
    
    /dave

And another one coming later, it said.

Now to figure out just what ARE the tax implications of this!

				Steve

    My husband (TFSO'd 5/93) got his check yesterday also. Like .243
    says.."nice check"  :-)

I felt a great deal of satisfaction receiving money from the "Digital
Litigation Fund".   It's about time the company listen when employees
speak - but there's always another way to make a point, as this has
proven.

    Yes, so, is this taxable or not?  My guess is that it isn't,
    since it is a premium refund sort of...
    

    Taxable?  I doubt it.  It SHOULD be treated as a non-taxable partial
    return of premiums (that were paid with after-tax dollars).  I suppose
    it's possible that it could be treated as a taxable windfall
    settlement, but I'll take a major cue from whether or not the law firm
    writing the checks sends us a 1099 in January or otherwise indicates
    they've provided this info to the IRS...
    
    Yes, the checks are nice.  Can't wait to see if this was 1/2 of the
    amount due or just a small "down payment"...!

    Could someone clairfy thee last few notes- did a payoff get made to
    those that were left out of the original payoff?

    RE: .249
    
    Ron,
    
    It appears that some folks that were excluded from the original payout
    received checks this week. My wife was TFSO'd (NU-WORD?) in 1991, and
    received a check on Monday. 
    
    kjg

    Checks have been received.  My best friend was hit in 1991; she
    got a check for $82.60 on Monday.  She called a number she had to
    check for further information.  She was told the case had been
    settled out of court.  She was told to expect another check soon,
    but the amount of money would be much lower than the $82.00.
    
    As in all such cases, after the lawyers take their cut, not much
    remains to be divided amongst those who were part of the suit.
    

    I received a check for $300 and some dollars.  I was TFSOed in 1993,
    if I remember correctly.
    

    My wife left voluntarily prior to the TFSO's and she also recieved a
    check, so it isn't just those who were transitioned, but anyone who
    paid into the insurance....
    
    Louie

	Did you have to put your name into the class action suit mentioned
	earlier in order to recieve a check? I paid 2x for a long time and
	remember getting a nice check a couple of years ago. I'm not sure
	I'd be getting one now?

							mike

  Yes, these checks are being sent to those who signed up as part of the
  class-action suit. The note included on my check simply says:

	"Dear Claimant:

	The enclosed check represents your proportionate share of the
        initial distribution from the Digital Equipment Corporation
        Litigation Settlement Fund. A second distribution will be made
        to you at a later date."


  FWIW, my check was less than 15% of what I would have gotten if I had
  been included in the original distribution. If I understand correctly,
  $6.5M was available to settle this suit; some from Digital and some from
  JH. I'm sure the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

  BTW, does anybody know how many people filed claims? I'm curious, just
  to take a swag at how much the lawyers got.... btw, I was Claim No. 1974.
  Anybody know of a claim number significantly higher?

    Hopefully, this closes yet another sad chapter in the company's history...

    sigh,
    -john.

    I am claim no. 3942.
    
    Nice check!

I withdrew from the optional life coverage before the original cutoff, and
was then included in the expanded claim.  I don't recall having explicitly
filed a claim.

				Steve

 I also received a check in the mail yesterday for ~ $245.0.  I had to call
 call the 1-800 number to report a change of address so I asked them about 
 the distribution of the fund.  They told me that for the first go around 
 there was $4.0 million dollars to be distributed in which the lawyers 
 fees consumed about $800,000.00 of it.  The second go around of the checks
 would be in approximately 3 months and you should expect almost half of
 what you received in the mail the first time.  

    My calc estimated $1700 if I was in the plan on the dreaded Aug 17th 
    cutoff date.  I had switch insurers 2 months prior.
    
    I entered a class action form last summer and waited.  Just
    received $250 which is roughly 15% of what I calculated I was entitled
    to.  If the previous reply is correct then my second check will brng my
    % to 22% ($375).  
    
    Only winners here are the lawyers.  I'm sure the settlement included
    100% of their fees and expenses.
    
    Those of you who have send "nice check" are probably also at 15% of
    what you should have received.
    
    Oh well it is better than nothing.  Just another Digital screw up.
    
    Cheers,    
    Paul
         
    

    Since we hadn't seen any monies thought I'd check the 800 number again.
    Now they are saying the checks will be dispursed sometime in the next
    90 days. Back in Nov, it was end of Jan. Wonder how come the delay?

    Re: .243
    
    Another nice check in the mail yesterday, bringing the total to $1000.
    
    Thank you again, David Berdon & Co.
    
    /dave
    

    Yesterday, 5/22/97, I got the second check.  The note enclosed read:
    
    "Dear Claimant:
    
    The enclosed check represents your proportionate share of the second
    distribution from the Digital Equipment Corporation Insurance
    Litigation Settlement Fund.  A third distribution may be made at a
    later date which has not yet been determined.  We do not anticipate
    that such a third distribution, if there is any, will be made in the
    near future and it is not likely to take place for several
    years............." (followed by statements about address change
    notification, tax advice and how to make inquiries)"
    
    The check was much larger than I expected; off the cuff - about 85-90%
    of the amount of check one, as opposed to the 50% that was expected.
    
    Thanks to those who have participated in this note; it was nice to be
    kept informed.
    

	I've moved since I received the first check. Could someone kindly
	post the address to request a change of address?

Thanks,

Larry

    	Interesting reading...  
    
    	I participated from 80-92, when I was TFSO'd.  For the heck of it, I 
    called the 800 number and was told "Digital provided us with a database.  
    Sorry you're not in this database."
    
    joyce

    Joyce, I received a questionaire from the lawyers a long time
    ago (a couple of years?) asking if I thought I qualified. I sent
    back my dates of employment and said "I dunno" and I did receive the
    first check.  If you think you qualify, I would call Dec HR and ask
    them to check their records.
    

    
    So this 2nd check is just for the people TFSO'd or who left the company, 
    correct?  
    Thanks,
    Tom

I'm pretty sure I was in the plan in '93, but don't recall any of this
happening.  Is it too late to do anything?  I still carry the optional coverage.

-John

    Re: .269/.270
    
    As I recall, people who were ex-Digits were not
    given a chunk of money that current Digits were.  The money was
    a refund involved in the life insurance premiums or something
    (I'm too busy to look back at the first notes in this
    string) from when all of these people did work for the company.
    
    Hence the lawsuit.  So far one check has been received as part of
    the settlement.  The lawyers said then that a second check would
    be appearing later.  Haven't gotten my second check yet, but clearly
    they are being sent out now.  So, if you were employed  by Digital
    continuously, no, you already received the refund directly from the
    company before the lawsuit started, and it was substantially more
    than those of us who are receiving it via the lawsuit will get, due to
    the lawyers' fees.
    

    re. 268
    
    Karen I may do that, I was with Digital from 80-92 and did get the
    optional coverage, right up until my TFSO.
    
    joyce

I have been with Digital continuously since 1978 and I received a nice
check yesterday. 

				Steve

    re .273
    
    Steve -- 
    
    If this gets personal, just skip it -- but your note seems to imply
    that you weren't included in the original distribution ~3 years ago.
    My understanding is that you should have been.
    
    Tony

Re: .274

Three years ago?  The first distribution was last June, and I did get a 
check then.

				Steve

|I have been with Digital continuously since 1978 and I received a nice
|check yesterday. 
    
    I've been with DEC continuously since 1980 and didn't receive anything.

    I've been with Digital continuously since 1974.... didn't get anything
    either.  Would HR know if I'm eligible?
    
    chet

My understanding was that if you had optional life insurance
coverage and were employed by Digital as of like 13-Aug-1993,
then you got your $$ direct from Digital as a close-out of their
old life insurance program.  If you weren't employed as of that
date (or thereabouts), then you got $0 - even if you were laid off
2 days before (as a bunch of folks were).  Thus the reason for
the class-action suit, representing all those "former" employees
who wouldn't get their $$ back.  Those in this case got two
installments - 1 last year and 1 just this week (with a potential for
a 3rd sometime down the line) - but this was ONLY for those "former"
employees who had optional life insurance coverage.

I was in the first case (employed by Digital on 13-Aug-93) and got a
check back for a big amount in that timeframe direct from Digital.
My wife was in the latter case (left Digital before 13-Aug-93) and
became part of the class-action group and got the two installments
as above.

Steve - not sure why you were in this "latter" category if you've never
left Digital - sounds odd...

andy

    	My point was, I should have been in the 2nd "class action suit", so
    I called to find out if there was any recourse, since apparently some
    people were notified and some were not.
    
    	I was told by the Attorney's office, "Digital provided us with a
    databse of those people who were eligible.  You are not in that
    database."  I should have been, I was employed from 80-92 and
    contributed to the program.
    
    	Guess I need to try and hunt someone down in HR and find out why I
    wasn't in the database...
    
    joyce

The eligible people were those who paid in for optional life insurance during
a specified period.  At the time of the initial distribution, those who had
left Digital were not eligible, but that later changed.  The people who
got the initial distribution were still up for more checks later.

					Steve

    Hmmm, if that be the case, why haven't *I* received another check?
    
    -Andy

    Andy, my second check just arrived in yesterday's mail.
    

    Does this "rebate" or whatever it is just apply to people residing in
    certain states?
    
    TJ

    Hmm,  I worked for DEC (and still do) continuously since 1983, and
    started in on optional extra coverage either from the start or soon
    thereafter.  I don't remember seeing such a thing.  I'll have to check
    too - if I can find somebody from HR in this era where the local office
    just closed.