MetLife Legal Plans · Dependent account creation
Letting families reach their legal benefits online, not only by phone
How dependents got their own online accounts on legalplans.com.
7 min read
The 30-second version
Dependents could only get help by calling. Now a member invites them online.
Problem
Dependents had no online accounts. The only way in was calling a service center, and verifying them over the phone wasn’t reliable.
My role
The only designer, from discovery with legal, compliance, sales and customer service through hi-fi and handoff.
Key decision
Member-driven invitations, chosen over three dependent-driven options after review with legal and security.
Outcome
Shipped to production on legalplans.com. Dependents now create their own accounts from a member’s invitation instead of calling.
Before · phone
- Dependent
- Calls a service center
- Reads the member’s details to an agent
- Gets a case number
After · invite
- Member sends an invite
- Dependent opens the email
- Creates a password
- Lands on dependent services
Context
Group legal insurance, offered only through employers
MetLife Legal Plans covers employees through their benefits package. Members can extend that coverage to eligible dependents, like a spouse or a child.
But legalplans.com had no way for a dependent to have an account. Everything they were entitled to online sat behind the member’s login, or behind a phone call.
- Product
- legalplans.com, the member portal
- Who uses it
- Members and their dependents
- Dependent tiers
- Seven, each with its own access
- Timeline
- 3 months
The problem
For a dependent, the only way in was a phone call
- No online accessDependents couldn’t reach the online products and services they were entitled to.
- Unreliable verificationChecking over the phone that someone really was a dependent wasn’t reliable.
- No dependent dataThe product team couldn’t see how dependents used the plan.
- Held back modernizationThe phone-based authorization held back modernizing the platform.
Who it is for
Two people share one plan
The member pays for the plan and controls who is on it. The dependent uses it, and their legal matters are theirs alone.
The member
Employee enrolled through their employer
- Needs
- Control over who gets access to the plan they pay for.
- Before
- No way to add a dependent online.
The dependent
Spouse, child or other eligible dependent
- Needs
- The plan’s online services, with their legal matters kept private.
- Before
- Called a service center and read the member’s personal details to an agent.
My role
I was the only designer on the project
- Role
- Product Designer, the only designer on the project
- What I did
- Discovery. Ran sessions with legal, compliance, sales and customer service to set the privacy and security limits.
- Research. Reviewed how eight competitors in insurance and fintech onboard dependents.
- Flows and options. Mapped both authorization models and wireframed four ways to create a dependent account.
- Hi-fi and handoff. Designed the final UI in MetLife’s design system, with error states and edge cases, then handed off to engineering.
- Worked with
- Engineering, product management and legal counsel
- Tools
- Sketch, InVision, Miro, PowerPoint, Zenhub
Process
From five open questions to one invitation flow
- Discovery
5 questions
Privacy, dependent types, call-center pain, legal limits and sales value
- Competitors
8 reviewed
Three models found
- Flows
2 models mapped
Dependent-driven and member-driven, for engineering and product
- Wireframes
4 options
Tested against the constraints
- Decision
Member-driven
After legal and security review
- Hi-fi
Shipped
MetLife’s design system, then engineering handoff
Research
The five questions discovery had to answer
Privacy
Where are the privacy limits between a member’s and a dependent’s case data?
Dependent types
How should the UI change for a spouse vs a child?
Call center
Where does manual phone verification slow things down today?
Legal limits
When can a dependent self-identify, and when does the member need to authorize?
Sales
How can sales use this as an advantage with employers?
The answers set four rules the design had to live inside, and privilege was the one everything else depended on.
Constraints
Four rules the design had to live inside
- Legal
Privilege comes first
Because of attorney-client privilege, a member can never see a dependent’s legal matters, yet the member still controls who gets access.
- Verification
Verification was verbal
Dependents read the member’s personal details to an agent to get a case number.
- Data
No roster at enrollment
Unlike health insurance, dependents aren’t captured at open enrollment, so eligibility has to be confirmed afterwards.
- Access
Seven dependent tiers
Each tier has its own features and access limits in the portal.
Competitive analysis
Three ways others link dependents, and the gap none of them filled
Eight competitors across health, military and auto insurance each used one of three models.
Reviewed · 8 providers
Humana
eHealth Saskatchewan
Health Vermont
PinnacleHealth
Humana Military
BlueCross BlueShield
DMDC
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
| Model | Member controls access | Dependent’s matters stay private | How a dependent is verified | Seen in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary account gives permissionsThe account holder grants access to people under the account. | Yes | NoThe holder can see what’s under the account. | The holder’s own login, no phone call | Health insurance |
| Self-identify statusThe dependent proves their own status. | NoAnyone with proof can sign up. | Yes | A document, like a military ID | Military benefits |
| Multiple users, one accountEveryone shares one login. | PartlyThrough who knows the password. | NoEveryone sees everything. | Nothing beyond the shared login | Auto insurance |
No model gave the member control and kept the dependent’s legal matters private.
Attorney-client privilege requires both. Our answer: borrow the invitation from the first model, but give every dependent their own account.
The key decision
Who should start a dependent’s account?
Either the dependent signs up and asks for access, or the member sends an invitation. I wireframed four options and tested each against the four rules.
Dependent question
Ask at sign-up whether the person is a dependent.
- Pros
- Dependents can create accounts online. Members don’t need to self-identify.
- Cons
- The question might confuse members.
Member by default
Same question, with “member” pre-selected.
- Pros
- Dependents can create accounts online. No extra steps for members.
- Cons
- Dependents might keep the default option.
Auto-detect user type
Keep sign-up as is; add an optional employment question.
- Pros
- Dependents can create accounts online. No change for members.
- Cons
- The employment question is confusing, dependents get more steps, and the sorting rules are stricter.
Member invites dependents
Members invite dependents from a control panel.
- Pros
- The member controls access. No dependent question, and sorting isn’t affected.
- Cons
- A dependent can’t self-serve, and the member has to create an online account first.
The decision
I recommended member-driven invitations
The member authorizes the invitation, so eligibility is confirmed before the dependent’s account exists. That replaced self-identification and the verbal check.
A dependent can’t start on their own. The member has to have an online account and send the invite first.
Reviewed with legal and security stakeholders before we committed.
Wireframe to shipped
From the option we chose to the page that shipped
The solution
One invitation, end to end
The member starts it. The dependent finishes it, with no extra verification step, because the invitation already did that job.
- Member
Opens Manage Dependents
One page for everyone on the plan
- Member
Sends an invite
Email twice, relationship, coverage confirmation
- Dependent
Opens the email
The invitation links to sign-up
- Dependent
Creates a password
No member details to read out
- Dependent
Lands on dependent services
Access follows their tier
The invite
Four fields that keep the invite safe
Email
Where the invitation goes. It becomes the dependent’s login.
Confirm email
Typed twice so the invite doesn’t go to the wrong person.
Relationship
Sets what the dependent can use, based on their tier.
Coverage confirmation
The member confirms the person is covered under the plan and the email is theirs.
In production
The shipped screens and flows
Production recordings from legalplans.com. Videos load only when you press play.
Outcome
Shipped to production on legalplans.com
Dependents can now create their own accounts online, not only by phone.
Members invite dependents, and remove them, from one Manage Dependents page.
The member’s invitation replaced the phone check, where dependents read the member’s personal details to an agent.
Reflection
What I took from it
Design for the edge cases first
Members, seven dependent tiers and different plan codes made this a complex system. My job was to keep the screens simple for the people using them.
A UX decision can fix a security problem
Moving from dependent-driven to member-driven put the paying member, the real source of truth, in charge of access. That one decision let us retire the phone verification step.
Appendix
Additional material
More screens and artifacts from the project.
A1Competitor methods
A2The eight competitors reviewed
A3The dependent-driven flow we didn’t pick
A4All four wireframes, full size