Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 9 Feb 2012
In Knopick v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 10-4707-cv, 2012 WL 147887 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2012) (by summary order), the Second Circuit upheld the administrative denial of a claim for supplemental life insurance benefits where the participant died before the insurance carrier had made a determination with resect to the paricipant's insurability.
Williams Mullen | USA | 16 Aug 2011
In Faber, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, No. 09-4901-cv, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16153 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2011), the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that retained asset accounts, in which insurance proceeds are retained by the claims administrator for immediate use by the beneficiary, are not plan assets under ERISA.
Jorden Burt LLP | USA | 9 Aug 2011
On August 5, 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its much-anticipated decision in Faber v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co ., affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff's putative class action that alleged MetLife breached its ERISA fiduciary duties by distributing ERISA-governed life insurance benefits through Retained Asset Accounts.
Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 2 Mar 2011
In its seminal ruling in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that a “structural” conflict of interest exists in situations where the same entity evaluates claims for benefits and pays benefit claims.
Jorden Burt LLP | USA | 22 Feb 2011
At the request of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Labor, on February 17, 2011, submitted a letter brief in the pending Faber v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. appeal.
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC | USA | 29 Jul 2010
The Second Circuit recently held that because Taft-Hartley plans are administered by trustees consisting of union and employer representatives, the plans are inherently conflicted when making benefit determinations and this conflict should be considered by federal district courts when reviewing plan determinations.
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.
Fox Rothschild LLP | USA | 12 Jul 2010
You might recall from a previous posting that I discussed the Supreme Court's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn.
Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 29 Jun 2010
On June 24, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in Durakovic v. Building Service 32 BJ Pension Fund, 2010 WL 2519645 (2d Cir. 2010), that Taft-Hartley funds (administered by boards of trustees consisting of an equal number of union and employer representatives) are inherently conflicted when making benefit determinations, and that this conflict needs to be considered......