Corinne Chandler
Corinne Chandler Photo

Corinne Chandler

Senior Partner
Corinne Chandler Video Play
Video
  • Profile
Bio

Corinne Chandler is a Senior Partner with Kantor & Kantor. After substantial experience in the disability field, she joined the Firm at its inception in 2004. Corinne represents clients who have been denied disability, life, and long term care benefits by insurance carriers. She has practiced in the ERISA disability field since 1995 and enjoys advocating for those who have been wrongfully denied benefits.

Prior to her joining the Firm, Corinne was a partner at both Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, and Seyfarth, Shaw. While at those Firms, Corinne often represented disability carriers in the defense of benefit claims. After 18 years of representing carriers, Corinne decided to “switch sides” and now devotes her practice exclusively to representing claimants in the recovery of their benefits.

Corinne was born and raised in Southern California and resides in Pasadena with her husband. Together with her husband, she has raised two children, who also reside in Southern California. She enjoys spending time with her family and biking.

Admissions

  • State Bar of Illinois, 1980
  • State Bar of California, 1983
  • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • United States District Court, Northern District of California
  • United States District Court, Eastern District of California
  • United States District Court, Central District of California
  • United States District Court, Southern District of California

Education

  • Juris Doctor, De Paul University College of Law, 1980
  • Bachelor of Arts, St. Mary's of Notre Dame, 1977

Publications

  • June, 2001, The AdvocateAnatomy of an ERISA case
  • June, 2013, The AdvocateCalifornia’s Ban on Discretionary Clauses in Disability and Life Insurance Case
  • Contributing Editor, The Rutter Group, California Practice Guide, Insurance Litigation, Ch. 6.

Notable Decisions

  • Gaines v Sargent Fletcher, Inc. Group Life Ins. Plan, 329 F. Supp.2d 1198, 2004 WL 1796743 (C.D. Cal., 2004)
  • Abdel Malek v Life Ins. Co. of North America, 359 F. Supp.2d 912, 2005 WL 578460 (C.D. Cal., 2005)
  • Boyd v Aetna Life Ins. Co., 438 F. Supp.2d 1134, 2006 WL 18511475 (C.D. Cal., 2006)
  • Greenwood v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 471 F. Supp.2d 1049, 2007 WL 268227 (C.D., Cal., 2007)
  • Archuleta v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 504 F. Supp.2d 876 (C.D. Cal., 2007)
  • Mandala v California Law Enforcement Ass’n, 561 F. Supp.2d 1130, 2008 WL 2511793 (C.D., Cal., 2009)
  • Sacks v Standard Ins. Co., 671 F. Supp.2d 1148, 2009 WL 4307558 (C.D., Cal., 2009)
  • Whealen v Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co.2007 WL 1891175 (C.D. Cal., 2007), aff’d 332 Fed Appx. 443 (9th Cir., 2009)
  • Rorabaugh v Continental Case. Co., 2006 WL 4384712 (C.D. Cal., 2006), aff’d, 321 Fed. Appx. 708 (9th Cir., 2009)
  • Taylor v SmithKline Beecham Corp.629 F. Supp.2d 1032 (C.D., Cal., 2009)
  • Letvinuck v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.439 Fed Appx. 585 (2011 WL 2469222) (9th Cir., 2011)
  • Kreeger v Life Ins. Co. of North America.766 F. Supp.2d 991 (C.D. Cal., 2011)
  • Polnicky v Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, 2014 WL 6680725 (N.D. Cal., 2014)
  • Hertan v Unum Life Ins. Co.111 F. Supp.3d 1075, 2015 WL 3632244 (C.D. Cal., 2015)
  • Yancy v. United of Omaha, 2015 WL 9311729 (C.D., Cal., 2015)
  • Gottlieb v Conseco Senior Health Insurance Company, 612 Fed. Appx. 468 (9th Cir., 2015)
  • Murphy v California Physicians Service, 2017 WL 1330636 (N.D., Cal., 2017)
  • Rappa v Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 2017 WL 3394111 (E.D., Cal., 2017)
  • Kibel v Aetna Life Ins. Co., --Fed. Appx.—, 2018 WL 832870 (9th Cir., 2018)​​​​​​
  • Ramirez v Aetna Life, 2012 WL 5302407 (N.D. Cal., ) (Holding that plan was not ERISA plan, but subject to state law)
  • Rawls v Unum, 2019 F. supp.2d 1063 (C.D. Cal., 2002) (Plaintiff could assert ERISA class claims against insurance carrier)
  • Gullidge v Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 501 F. Supp.2d 1280 (C.D. Cal., 2007) (Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees after insurance carrier unilaterally reinstates benefits)
  • Klees v Liberty Life110 F. supp.3d 978 (C.D. Cal., 2015) (Plaintiff adequately pled a bad faith claim against Liberty)

Contact Us

Schedule Your No-Cost Consultation
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.