Haynes and Boone LLP | USA | 19 Sep 2014
In the case of Moyer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a notice of benefit denial under ERISA…
Seyfarth Shaw LLP | USA | 21 Aug 2014
In a divided decision, in Moyer v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 13-1396 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2014) the Sixth Circuit held that MetLife's failure…
Lane Powell PC | USA | 16 May 2013
In Judge v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company [PDF], 710 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2013), the Sixth Circuit rejected plaintiff's proposed bright-line rule…
Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 7 Jun 2011
Remedies: On the same day that the United States Supreme Court in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara (see above) suggested that the remedy of surcharge was one of equity and may be available under ERISA, the Fourth Circuit in McCravy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 1833873 (4th Cir. May 16, 2011), concluded the opposite, finding that an employee of Bank of America could not recover the full value of her......
Dorsey & Whitney LLP | USA | 25 Jan 2011
On January 24, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291.
Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 13 Jul 2010
In the wake of Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (May 24, 2010), in which the Supreme Court held that a party must achieve "some success on the merits" in order to obtain an attorney’s fee award under ERISA, two federal circuits have concluded that the so-called "five-factor test" for determining such awards used by many district courts prior to Hardt remains an......
Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 13 Jul 2010
For plan counsel, the defense of claims for benefits is often complicated by the rather pro-participant nature of ERISA's rules governing the statute of limitations.
Bricker & Eckler LLP | USA | 31 Dec 2008
The United States Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn affirming a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside an ERISA plan administrator's denial of long-term disability benefits.
Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 25 Sep 2008
The Eleventh Circuit has held that the “heightened” arbitrary and capricious standard of review previously used by the court in cases where a conflicted plan administrator decided a claim for benefits — and its accompanying burden-shifting analysis — does not survive the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008).
White & Case | USA | 17 Jul 2008
The US Supreme Court has been busy regarding ERISA matters.