We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
Most popular |Most recent


U.S. Supreme Court holds that ERISA plan can enforce contractual limitations provision to bar benefit claim lawsuit

USA - December 17 2013 The U.S. Supreme Court in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. et al. resolved a split among the circuits when it held that a...

Susan Katz Hoffman, Daniel W. Srsic.


It’s never too late for a forum selection clause court enforces clause added after the plaintiff retired

USA - February 19 2013 Forum selection clauses are appearing with increasing frequency in ERISA benefit plan documents. Their purpose is clear and important: to centralize...


Fourth Circuit recognizes equitable estoppel and surcharge as potential vehicles for awarding “make whole” relief under ERISA Section 502(a)(3)

USA - July 21 2012 On July 5, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in McCravy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority opinion in CIGNA Corp v. Amara to expand the relief available under ERISA section 502(a)(3) to include the remedies of surcharge and estoppel....

Darren E. Nadel.


Unintended errors in benefits communications may result in liability under ERISA

USA - March 14 2012 Employee benefits issues have become increasingly complex....


Conflict discovery post-Glenn: court allows short depositions to proceed based on something less than good cause

USA - January 6 2012 In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved an issue dividing federal courts for decades when it ruled that the inherent conflict of interest affecting insurance companies that both decide and pay ERISA benefit claims is a factor for courts to weigh in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion in connection with a benefit denial, but does not alter the applicable standard of judicial review....