If a disability insurer points to surveillance video, a Facebook post, a tagged photo, or even a Venmo caption and says it undercuts your claim, the experience can feel personal and disorienting. A short clip may not show pain after the activity. A smiling photo may not show the recovery time that followed. A single online interaction may not reflect what your doctors have documented for months.
That disconnect is a big part of why surveillance disputes can become so serious in long-term disability and other disability-related insurance claims. Insurers and administrators often look for inconsistencies, while claimants are living real lives that rarely fit neatly into a few seconds of video or a curated online post. The U.S. Department of Labor’s disability claims rules emphasize fairness, transparency, and the right to review and respond to new information used in an adverse decision, which can be especially important when surveillance enters the file. The Department of Labor’s claims-procedure guidance and its 2016 explanation of added disability-claims protections both describe a process built around a full and fair review.
In this post you’ll learn how insurers typically use video and online activity, what a measured response often looks like, where people accidentally make the problem worse, and how an attorney may help build context around evidence that looks damaging at first glance. If you want a broader overview of these tactics, it may help to start with this piece on how insurers use activity checks and online posts to challenge credibility.
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
From an insurer’s perspective, surveillance is often framed as part of claim investigation. State insurance regulators and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners describe claims handling rules as standards for the investigation and disposition of claims, and those standards generally contemplate a reasonable investigation rather than snap judgments based on fragments of information. See the NAIC’s Unfair Life, Accident and Health Claims Settlement Practices Model Regulation and the NAIC Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. Texas, for example, has publicly reminded insurers that unfair claim settlement practices can include refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based on all available information. Texas Department of Insurance bulletin.
At the same time, insurers increasingly look at digital footprints. The American Bar Association recently noted that social media activity is now commonly scrutinized in disability claims and that curated posts can be misread as proof that a person is not disabled. ABA article on social media and disability denials. The NAIC has also observed that insurers use AI and third-party data in claims-related decision-making and that any AI-supported action still has to comply with applicable insurance laws and regulations. NAIC overview of AI in insurance.
In practical terms, insurers may be looking for things like:
The problem is not just that insurers gather this material. The bigger issue is that they may present it without the surrounding context.
A surveillance clip might show someone carrying groceries for 45 seconds. It may not show that the person needed to lie down for hours afterward. A photo from a family event might show someone smiling at a wedding. It may not show that they left early, used medication to get through it, or spent the next two days in bed.
That gap matters. The Department of Labor’s disability claims framework requires plans governed by ERISA to provide claimants with a fair opportunity to review and respond to new evidence or rationales before a final adverse appeal decision is issued. Department of Labor guidance. In many disability cases, that process is where context gets added back into the record.
Common missing context includes: